Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Dartford and Purfleet (Thames) Tunnel Bill (Certified Bill) (by Order).

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

London and North Eastern Railway (Hull Level Crossings) Bill (Certified Bill) (by Order).

Second Reading deferred till Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

PROPAGANDA.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a publication called the "Workers' Daily," which is engaged in hostile propaganda inspired from Soviet sources and is financed by the Third International; and whether he has called the attention of the Soviet Government to this breach of the recent agreement?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): If the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the publication known as the "Daily Worker," he will find the answer to his question in my reply to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) on the 22nd January, to which I have nothing to add.

Sir A. KNOX: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it advisable to make representations to the Soviet Ambassador on account of this paper?

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Having regard to the state of affairs since the undertaking was signed, and to the issue of this paper, which is directly financed by the Soviet Government, does the right
hon. Gentleman not really think that the time has come when he must intimate to the Soviet Government that he will not tolerate this state of things any longer?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have no evidence of the accuracy of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: We are getting too many supplementary questions.

Mr. SMITHERS: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a reply from the Soviet Ambassador to his protest against the message from the Communist International which appeared recently in an issue of an English newspaper; and, if so, will he communicate that reply to the House?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have nothing to add to my statement of Monday last.

Mr. SMITHERS: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: Under the Rules of Procedure that govern questions, if a Minister says that it is not in the public interest to answer a question, he need not do so, and a Member has no right to press him.

Mr. SMITHERS: May I ask you a question, Sir? I should be the last person to ask a Minister to answer anything which would be against the public interest, but all we want is an answer "Yes" or "No."

Mr. SPEAKER: On Monday the same question was put, and the Minister said that he had nothing to add.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: May I ask a question arising out of the matter of public interest?

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Smithers.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMP-SON: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give this House an opportunity of discussing the recent protest made by the Foreign Secretary to the Soviet Ambassador in regard to the question of propaganda?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): If a further discussion on
this subject is required, it may be debated on the Foreign Office Vote in Committee of Supply. I regret that it is impossible to provide a special day for this purpose.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: We understood from the right hon. Gentleman that during this Session opportunity would be given to debate any subject that the Opposition asked for in the usual way, deeming the matter to be of sufficient importance. We deem Russia to be of sufficient importance, and, if we ask in the usual way for a day, which we shall do, we shall expect the right hon. Gentleman to comply.

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope there will be no misunderstanding on that point. I did not treat this as an official Opposition request. If the Opposition officially request a day, they shall have a day.

Mr. BALDWIN: I have no desire to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman. That is one of the subjects which we shall wish to discuss, and I shall give due notice to the Government.

ARRESTS.

Sir A. KNOX: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make inquiries regarding the fate of domestic servants and other employés who were imprisoned by the Soviet authorities in 1927 after the departure of our diplomatic mission?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: According to my latest information, all these persons are now at liberty.

PROTOCOL (NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. SMITHERS: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when, in view of the protocol signed by himself and Mr. Dovgalevsky, and dated 3rd October, 1929. and in view of the provision in Clause 2 that negotiations shall take place immediately on the resumption of full diplomatic relations, he proposes to settle the matters referred to in Clause 1 (3) of that protocol; and what steps has he taken to set up committees under Clause 4?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: As I informed the hon. Member on Monday last,
negotiations are now proceeding respecting all the questions enumerated in the protocol of the 3rd October.

Mr. SMITHERS: When does the right hon. Gentleman hope to have any solution of some of these difficulties, especially as regards the debt?

Mr. HENDERSON: It is quite impossible at the opening of negotiations to say when we hope to have a solution. I have already said that when negotiations are complete the matter will be brought before the House.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Will it be possible for the Foreign Secretary to make an interim statement from time to time as to how these negotiations are going on, as has been done in regard to the Five-Power Conference?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is quite another point.

BESSARABIA.

Mr. ALLEN: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in accordance with Article 9 of the treaty between the principal Allied Powers and Rumania respecting Bessarabia, signed at Paris on the 28th October, 1920, His Majesty's Government, having recognised the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, proposes to consult with the other high contracting parties to the treaty who have pursued the same course with a view to inviting Russia to adhere to that treaty?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: No. Sir. The question does not arise, since the Treaty is not in force.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (ARGENTINE REPUBLIC).

Mr. MANDER: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is prepared to use the good offices of the Government to endeavour to persuade the Government of the Argentine Republic to resume full co-operation in the work of the League of Nations?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I am confident that Argentina does not need to be assured of the satisfaction with which His Majesty's Government and all other members of the League would welcome the full co-operation of Argentina in the work of the League. I am sure that all
members of the League earnestly hope that the time may not be far distant when the Argentine Government will feel able to decide on such co-operation.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (TREATY PROPOSALS).

Sir K. WOOD: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet had any communication from the Egyptian Government with regard to the proposed treaty submitted by the British Government; and what is the present position with regard to the proposed treaty?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The Egyptian Prime Minister presented the treaty proposals to the Chamber on the 3rd February in the following terms:
In fulfilment of the promise made in the speech from the Throne regarding the British proposals, I have the honour to submit to you these proposals in the name of the Government.
To the spirit of conciliation which prompted those proposals the Egyptian Wafd, over which I have the honour to preside, has responded in a similar spirit.
That spirit was clearly manifested in the successive declarations which I have made before and after my taking office. It was equally clearly revealed in the speech from the Throne and in the speech I made on the occasion of the reply.
The Government is resolved, if you give it a mandate, to seize the opportunity of the presence in power of a British Government animated by a spirit of good understanding and friendship towards Egypt, to negotiate with it on the proposals in the same spirit and with the same desire of good understanding and friendship in the hope of reaching an honourable and lasting agreement between the two countries.
It is of importance to the Government that the Chamber should urgently examine the question of the mandate which we seek, so that we may be in a position to reply to the British Government and to put ourselves in contact with them in order to come to an agreement regarding an early date for the opening of negotiations.
We firmly hope that the negotiations will result in the agreement so much desired, in the interest and for the good of the two countries.
Once concluded, this agreement will be submitted by the Government to Parliament, which will have to give its ratification, and as soon as it will be ratified the Government will undertake its execution faithfully and scrupulously.
The High Commissioner reports that this statement was greeted by prolonged applause. It is understood that the
Egyptian Government's demand for a mandate will be taken by the Chamber on the 6th of February.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman read into that declaration any statement on the part of the Egyptian Prime Minister that the previous negotiations which he himself had are to be the basis of the new treaty, or whether the negotiations referred to mean an entirely new set of negotiations?

Mr. HENDERSON: Certainly not; I take the position that the whole statement is so friendly that, when the deputation comes, it is coming to negotiate on the basis that we set out before the House last year.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND RUSSIA.

Sir K. WOOD: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the present position at Wuchow; whether he has any information concerning the Manchurian agreement; and whether the Soviet Government are threatening a resumption of hostilities on the ground that such agreement is not being carried out?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The West River has been temporarily closed to traffic as a military measure and martial law has been proclaimed in Wuchow. It would seem that the Government are apprehensive of an attack there by the re-united remnants of the recently defeated "Ironsides" and Kwangshi armies.
A preliminary agreement, the terms of which have been generally reported in the Press, was signed at Habarovsk on the 22nd of December by Soviet and Chinese representatives. It provided, broadly speaking, for a restoration of former conditions. My latest information is that the carrying out of this agreement on the Chinese Eastern Railway is proceeding smoothly. The agreement provided for a further meeting in Moscow to discuss outstanding questions, but, so far as I know, this has not yet taken place. I have no information as to any threat of a resumption of hostilities.

Mr. MILLS: Has the Foreign Secretary any information as to the safety of the scattered remnants of the Northern Army, which is reputed to have taken shelter behind the Kingsley Woods?

Oral Answers to Questions — NICARAGUA (BRITISH CLAIMS).

Mr. ALLEN: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any progress to report as to the settlement of claims by British subjects on the Government of Nicaragua in respect of damage to their property during the recent civil disturbances in that country?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: In accordance with the terms of the decree setting up the new Nicaraguan Commission to assess these claims, the claims could not be presented to the Commission until 10 days after the publication by the Commission of its rules of procedure. His Majesty's Government have now received a text of the rules from His Majesty's representative at Managua, from which it appears that they were published on the 24th October last, so that it may be inferred that the claims are now being studied by the Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

MATE (PROMOTION).

Mr. THOMAS LEWIS: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if officers promoted from mate are given opportunities to specialise?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. T. LEWIS: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many promotions to mate executive and also mate E he anticipates will be made in 1930?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The number of promotions to be made depends to a very large extent upon the number of suitable candidates coming forward and it is not possible to give an actual estimate of the numbers anticipated.

Captain W. G. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an enormous amount of dissatisfaction in regard to promotions to mate and mate; will he consider this, and, if possible, meet the objections which have been made, especially in regard to anomalies in pay as compared with the cadet class?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am always willing to receive representations from the Service. I have had a good many
representations in the House, but no strong representations yet from representatives of the Lower Deck.

Mr. LEWIS: When is the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman has appointed likely to make their report on this subject?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I do not think I said that I had appointed a Committee. What I said was that full inquiries would be carried out in the Admiralty.

SERVICE PENSIONS (SUSPENSION).

Mr. LEACH: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider making an alteration in the regulation which causes service pensions to be temporarily forfeited if the recipient is committed to prison for debt?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): There is no Naval Regulation which directs that a service pension, is to be temporarily forfeited if a pensioner is committed to prison for debt. Under the Regulations all pensions are tenable only during good behaviour, the matter being judged by the Admiralty, and in cases of imprisonment it is usual to suspend a pension for the period of imprisonment. This suspension, however, is not inflicted on the occasion of a first imprisonment for debt. Should further imprisonments for debt occur the suspension of pension is at the discretion of the Board of Admiralty who would decide according to the circumstances of the case. The Regulations do not, therefore, require any alteration.

Mr. LEACH: Does the hon. Gentleman know that the Department dealing with old age pensions have no such regulations and no such forfeitures?

PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY (MEDITERRANEAN VISIT).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the charge on public funds of the Parliamentary Secretary's journey to Mediterranean stations?

Mr. ALBERY: 20.
asked the "First Lord of the Admiralty what staff accompanied the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on his inspection of Naval establishments in the Mediterranean; and what transport facilities were supplied by His Majesty's Navy?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The whole cost to the public of this visit, in which the Parliamentary Secretary was accompanied by a private secretary, was £115 16s. 8d. The party was conveyed from Syracuse to Malta in one of H.M. Destroyers, which was returning from the Adriatic to Malta, and from Gibraltar to Devon-port in H.M.S. "Cumberland," which was on her way home from the China Station.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Was that expenditure met out of savings, or does it require a Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The expenditure will be met without the necessity of submitting any Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. QUIBELL: Is it a fact that during the four years of the late Government five visits were paid?

LIEUT.-COMMANDERS (RETIREMENT).

Major - General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the number of lieut.-commanders of the Royal Navy who have retired under Admiralty Fleet Order 1030, of 1929; and whether the number is considered to have appreciably reduced the congestion in the lieut.-commanders' list?

Mr. AMMON: Sixty-eight retired under Admiralty Fleet Order 1036/29, and as a result the surplus on the list has been appreciably reduced.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of lieut.-commanders who are out of the promotion zone now and the estimated number who will be out of the zone on 1st January, 1931?

Mr. AMMON: The number is now 165. It is not possible to give any reliable estimate of the number on the 1st January, 1931, but the present number, which is abnormally low, will almost certainly be increased.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does that reply mean that the Government are prepared to make provision for admirals who are going to be dispensed with through disarmament and no provision is going to be made for the ordinary rank and file working men?

OFFICERS (RETIREMENT).

Sir R. HUTCHISON: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has considered the advisability of offering the full pension to those officers who are prepared to retire immediately they are out of the promotion zone?

Mr. AMMON: The offer of terms of retirement which are more favourable than those under the ordinary regulations can only be made in exceptional circumstances, when a special scheme of retirement is necessary. No such scheme is contemplated at present.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: Does my hon. Friend not realise that it is very bad for the Service to continue these officers in service when they have no hope of promotion? Would it not be a good thing if those officers who wish to retire could be allowed to retire on pension, and thus have an opportunity of taking up other occupations before they are too old?

Mr. AMMON: There is a difference between retirement and special retirement.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that these officers have been told that they have no hope of promotion—that there are too many on the list; and that it would be far better, from the point of the view of the Service and from the point of view of the officers themselves, if they were allowed to retire on pension rather than be kept on for another five years?

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE CANTEEN BOARD.

Mr. KELLY: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many representatives the Admiralty appoint to the Navy, Army, and Air Force Canteen Board; what responsibility the Admiralty have for the financing and conducting of these canteens; and what are the wages and conditions of working of the men and women employed in these canteens?

Mr. AMMON: The answers to the first and second parts of the question are as follow:
Four of the 12 members of the Council of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes are appointed by the Admiralty; one member of the board of management is nominated by the Admiralty; and a naval officer is employed in the naval
section. The Admiralty have no responsibility for the financing of the canteens, nor for their business management, which are matters for the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 3rd February by the Financial Secretary to the War Office (OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 1503–4).

Mr. KELLY: In view of the conditions operating in these canteens, will the Admiralty make some inquiries to see that conditions are at any rate humane?

Mr. AMMON: The hon. Member may have noticed that I said in my answer that the board of management are responsible. If there is any complaint, the matter can be raised there first; and then, if there is anything, it can be brought before the Council, who in turn will bring it before the Admiralty.

BUILDING PROGRAMMES (REDUCTIONS).

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what has led up to the decision of the Government to cancel the building of four cruisers, four destroyers, three submarines, and other smaller craft, which were included in the programmes of 1928–29 and 1929–30?

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 34.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make any statement as to the reasons which have caused His Majesty's Government to drop four destroyers and three submarines from the 192930 naval construction programme, having regard to the present weakness of the Navy in these categories compared with the other naval Powers?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The decisions referred to have been come to in pursuance of the declared naval policy of the Government, a full statement of which was made by the Prime Minister on the 24th July last. His statement made it clear that as progress was made with that policy, reductions of the present new construction programme, by way either of suspension or cancellation, were probable. After the fullest and most thorough examination by the Government of our naval needs, and also the consideration of the economic use of public money, the Government consider that the revised provision now made is adequate.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: May I ask whether any corresponding reductions have been made in the fleets of other nations, and whether any guarantee has been received which justifies His Majesty's Government in making such reductions?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I think that supplementary question anticipates another question which is on the Order Paper?

Sir G. CAYZER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ruthless cutting down of such vessels as torpedo-destroyers before any agreement has been come to at the Conference as to the position of submarines, can only be viewed throughout the country with feelings of very great anxiety?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have already said that the naval position has been fully reviewed and the Government have come to their decision; and the Government are quite confident that their policy in this matter has the support of the majority of the people of the country.

Captain HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these reductions and cancellations are going to make an enormous difference to the Royal yards, and will he expedite the alternative work which the Government have promised?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Perhaps my hon. Friend will await the answer to a question further down on the Paper as to the allocation of work.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: On a point of Order. I could not catch what the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to my supplementary question. May I know what he said?

Mr. ALEXANDER: What. I meant to convey to the hon. and gallant Member was that his supplementary question was already, in terms, on the Order Paper in a question addressed to the Prime Minister.

Colonel GRETTON: 33.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the decision was taken to make large reductions in the shipbuilding programme of 1928–29 and 1929–30 as authorised by Parliament and why no statement was made in this House of the changes decided to be made?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I would refer the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the Prime Minister's statement made in this House on the 24th July (OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 1301–8), and to my replies to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on the 29th January (OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 975–6 and columns 1019–20). These cover all the decisions taken on the 1928 and 1929 Programmes, and the decisions have in each case been announced to the House as soon as taken.

Colonel GRETTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is a statement made to this House when it is only a written answer to a question on another matter?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I do not follow the last suggestion that the question was on another matter. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will look up the records of the OFFICIAL REPORT for last Wednesday, he will see that a specific question was put down by the hon. Member for Devonport. (Mr. Hore-Belisha) for a written answer, and it happened that on that day, although we had not been previously informed of the question, that confirmation of the recommendation in the matter was made by the Government, and out of ordinary courtesy to the hon. Member whose question was on the Paper, and because of our duty to complete the announcement of the decision taken, the answer was made in a constitutional way.

Colonel GRETTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the method he has adopted of announcing a most important and drastic decision on the part of the Government has caused the greatest dissatisfaction both inside and outside this House and will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that in future, when he has an important announcement of this kind to make, he will make it across the Floor of the House, and not in answer to a question on another subject?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Obviously, I cannot be responsible for every Member of the House putting down a question, either starred or unstarred, but, whatever course an hon. Member takes, surely I am entitled to answer him as early as possible?

BOY ARTIFICERS (MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS).

Captain HALL: 24.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that boys who have passed the educational test and two medical examinations for entry into the Navy are liable to rejection by a third medical examination on entry; and if he will see that the first medical test is made more thorough in order to avoid expense to parents and disappointment to boys?

Mr. AMMON: I assume my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to boy artificers. These boys frequently volunteer to undergo a preliminary medical examination some time before taking the educational test. Those who pass this educational test undergo an official medical examination for entry into the Service, which is normally final. But those who join after a lapse of fourteen days or more are again medically examined on arrival in their ship or establishment.

Captain HALL: Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply does not answer the question which I put? This first examination takes place, and then, within 14 days there is another examination, often with an entirely different result. Is not that unfair to the boy and to his parents, who have spent money on his education?

Mr. AMMON: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The boy need not take the first examination unless he likes; that is for his own convenience. If, following the official examination, he should join up after a lapse of 14 days, he will be required to undergo a second examination, but not if he joins up within 14 days.

ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS (INVALIDINGS).

Captain HALL: 25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what number of engine-room artificers and chief engine-room artificers were invalided from His Majesty's Service during 1929?

Mr. AMMON: The following are the numbers invalided from His Majesty's Navy during 1929:
Engine-room artificers: 30 (including nine engine-room artificer apprentices).
Chief engine-room artificers: five.

PENSIONS (WAR SERVICE).

Captain HALL: 26.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the particular regulation which lays it down that a naval pensioner re-employed after a lapse of five years cannot count his previous service towards progressive and good-conduct badge pay; and if, as this bears hardly on deserving men, he will take steps to abolish this regulation?

Mr. AMMON: The regulation referred to is contained in Article 1584 of King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions and applies to all men voluntarily reentered and not to pensioners only. It provides that absence from the Naval Service for a longer period than live year entails forfeiture of previous service for all purposes, unless otherwise ordered by the Admiralty in a particular case. Men who, while not actually on the active list, have maintained touch with service matters and discipline, e.g., by means of drills as Royal Fleet Reservists, are allowed the benefits of reckoning former time even if their period of absence exceeds five years. No reason is seen for abolishing the rule.

—
Full Commission.
Special Commission.
Reserve.
Paid off (for repairs, etc.).


Cruisers
31
5
11
7


Destroyer Leadersand Destroyers
67
27
53
3


Sloops
26
1
4
—

DOCKYARDS (ALTERNATIVE WORK).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 28.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the steps which it is proposed to take to meet the decrease in employment occasioned by the further abandonment of naval construction?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Since this question is addressed to me, I assume that it refers to employment in the Royal Dockyards. I would refer the hon. Member to a reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Devonport on the 29th January (OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 975–6), and would ask him also to be content for the present with the assurance that the situation is engaging the attention of the Admiralty, and that so far it has been found possible to give effect to

Captain HALL: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that a man in the reserve fleet working party, although he may have been out of the Service for five years, does not get the 1s. 5d. per day, while a man who has been out of the Service for four years and 11 months gets it? Does the hon. Member not think that that is a sufficient reason for altering the regulation?

Mr. AMMON: I have no knowledge on the point put by my hon. Friend, but there must be a line drawn somewhere, and anomalies are bound to arise.

CRUISERS, DESTROYERS AND SLOOPS.

Commander SOUTHBY: 27.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number of cruisers, destroyers and sloops now in full and reserve commission?

Mr. ALEXANDER: As the answer is in tabular form I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The answer is as follows:

similar decisions without reducing dockyard employment.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: As far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, in replying for his own Department, is he not aware that this is a matter of very great importance to those engaged in armament work, and what preparations in anticipation of the proposed reduction of armaments have been made by the Government to provide work for those men who will become unemployed?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I think that that question, in so far as it does not relate to the Royal Dockyards, ought to be addressed to the Minister in charge of employment, because I imagine that any savings effected in this direction will probably be fruitful of expenditure in other directions.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot continue to debate this question.

INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYÉS (BANK HOLIDAYS).

Mr. THORNE: 32.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of his Department to continue to grant all recognised statutory bank holidays to manual workers in addition to the annual week's holiday; and whether in the latter case all employés will take their holidays at one and the same time?

Mr. ALEXANDER: It is intended to continue in addition to the week's holiday not only all the paid general holidays formerly allowed, but to give also an additional public holiday. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, but whether every bank holiday will also be a dockyard paid holiday depends upon a decision which has not yet been taken as to the particular week to be made the closed week.

Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this question of giving bank holidays at the same time as the annual holidays has been considered by the Joint Advisory Council or the Admiralty?

Mr. ALEXANDER: That is so, and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty is in full touch with the trade union representatives on the matter.

FISHING GROUNDS (SURVEY).

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: 30.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, if the new surveying vessel to be constructed for the Department of Fisheries at a cost of £80,000, plus £180,000 for the operating expenses, whilst searching for new fishing grounds discovers any valuable ground, it is proposed that the British chart publishers should be allowed to publish this information free of charge for the British fishermen without copyright claims being made upon such publishers?

Mr. AMMON: In the event of any valuable fishery grounds being discovered in the course of the proposed surveys, such information will be communicated forthwith to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries for immediate dissemination to the fishing industry. British
Admiralty charts showing the details of the surveys will be published in due course. All Admiralty charts are Crown Copyright and if any publisher desires to copy them application for permission would require to be made to the Controller of His Majesty's Stationery Office in whom Crown Copyright is vested.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (RAILWAY WORKERS' PAY).

Mr. SIMMONS: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that compulsory labour has been called out for the Jinja-Kampala Railway and that 14,000 men have already been impressed for this railway; what is the weekly wage paid to these men; and what is the market rate for free labour in the Protectorate?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on the 23rd January to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander). The rate of pay for labourers on the Jinja-Kampala Railway is 15 shillings per month of 26 working days plus rations which, including meat, cost 8 shillings 80 cents; in addition each man receives blankets costing 2 shillings 65 cents and a gunny-bag costing 95 cents at the beginning of a three months' contract. The market rate of labour in districts adjoining this railway averages 15 shillings per month without rations.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Was the calling out of this labour reported to the Secretary of State?

Dr. SHIELS: Ordinary powers were delegated by the Government to the authorities, and the Government have been kept fully in touch with this matter right through. We are now considering the question, not only in connection with these Colonies, but also in connection with the International Labour Office.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Is it a fact that labour can be called out compulsorily without notice being first given to the Secretary of State, and his approval obtained?

Dr. SHIELS: This was not compulsory labour; it was voluntary labour called out for the particular purposes of this railway.

Mr. STEPHEN: May I point out that the question refers to compulsory labour, and why does the Parliamentary Secretary now say that it refers only to voluntary labour?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Does the Labour Government approve of the principle of compulsory labour?

Dr. SHIELS: This matter was thoroughly gone into on a previous occasion, and I have referred the hon. Member to a long answer which was given on that occasion which fully explains the matter. There was some controversy on the question, and it will be remembered that there were prosecutions in connection with it which involved certain irregularities. Attention was called to them, and it was found that this had been done without approval, and steps were taken to put the matter right. The Government is keeping in close touch with the Native authorities, and there is little fear of any similar practices occurring in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONVENTION OF ST. GERMAIN.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies on what date the Congo Basin Treaties expire; and what action the Government is taking in regard to their renewal?

Dr. SHIELS: The earliest date at which steps could be taken with a view to revision of the Convention of St. Germain is 10 years after the deposit of the first ratifications, i.e., in August, 1930. As regards the second part of the question, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are pursuing the inquiries which were initiated by their predecessors in the matter.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Has the necessary notice been given to cause the Treaty to expire in August?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir; so far as I know, no notice has been given. In the absence of any attention being called to it, the Treaty continues in force.

Captain CAZALET: Has the hon. Gentleman received any representations from mercantile or industrial organisations as to the advisability of repealing or discontinuing this Treaty?

Dr. SHIELS: I am not aware of any such representations.

Oral Answers to Questions — ZAMBESI BRIDGE (RAILWAY TRAFFIC).

Sir HILTON YOUNG: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government for the unification or co-ordination of the railway companies controlling the lines that will serve the traffic that will use the proposed Zambesi bridge?

Dr. SHIELS: The principles of an arrangement have been agreed to, and discussion is now proceeding with regard to the details. It is not possible to give particulars at the present stage of the negotiations.

Sir H. YOUNG: Will Papers be laid when the bridge is completed?

Dr. SHIELS: I will consider that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES (SUGAR INDUSTRY COMMISSION).

Mr. THURTLE: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how the fees announced to have been paid to the members of the Commission on the Sugar Industry in the British West Indies were divided; and why it was considered to be necessary to pay fees in this case?

Captain CROOKSHANK: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what fee was paid to each of the members of the Commission on the Sugar Industry in the British West Indies; and what considerations determined the size of the fee in each case?

Colonel ASHLEY: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the name of the chairman of the Commission on the Sugar Industry in the British West Indian Colonies: and what fee, in addition to travelling expenses and subsistence allowances, he has or is to receive for his work in this connection?

Dr. SHIELS: The Commission consisted of two members, Lord Olivier who was Chairman, and Mr. D. M. Semple. The Chairman is to receive an honorarium of 650 guincas, and Mr. Semple one of 500 guineas. The inquiry was a technical and economic investigation, for which a special personnel was required. In the case of Mr. Semple, there was no question of being able to secure his services without this fee, and his authority as an expert is well known. The case of Lord Olivier was also in the nature of specialist service, and he was invited to act because of his particular qualifications for the work. He was Secretary to the Royal West Indian Commission in 1897, he had service in the Leeward Islands, and also acted as Colonial Secretary and Governor of Jamaica. Further, he has been head of the West Indian Department of the Colonial Office, and was later Permanent Secretary of the Board of Agriculture in England. He was, there fore, particularly well qualified to deal, not only with some of the technical issues involved, but also with questions of public finance and the economic and social conditions of the West Indian Colonies. To carry out the inquiry four months were necessary. As an ex-civil servant on pension, he was not in a position to undertake this work without replacing the income which he was losing by having to suspend his journalistic and literary work on which a necessary part of his income depends. There are many precedents for the payment of members of such Commissions. As has been stated, the Colonies concerned are meeting these costs, and we have every reason to believe that they consider the expenditure justified.

Mr. THURTLE: Were the Colonies concerned aware, at the time of the appointment of this Commission, that they would have to pay these salaries?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir; that was arranged before ever the proceedings were started.

Colonel ASHLEY: Was this heavy fee paid to Lord Olivier because he was no longer a Socialist Cabinet Minister?

Colonel ASHLEY: 52.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies why
those Colonies visited by the Commission on the Sugar Industry in the British West Indian Colonies were obliged to pay all the expenses of this inquiry; what is the reason for this departure from the accepted practice that the British Exchequer should contribute its share of the cost; and what was the attitude of the non-official members of the legislatures concerned?

Dr. MORGAN: 55.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to charge the expenses and disbursements in connection with the recent West Indian Sugar Convention to the different islands of the West Indies involved; and whether the basis of the proportionate charge will be the population, or total revenue, or relative importance of the sugar-cane industry in the respective colonies?

Dr. SHIELS: The decision to allocate the expenses of the West Indies Sugar Commission between the Colonies involved was taken with the concurrence of the respective Governments. The unofficial members were no doubt consulted by the Governors. I have no particulars of their attitude but I have no reason to suppose that they have opposed or will oppose expenditure upon a purpose so important to the Colonies concerned. The allocation was based upon the relative importance of the sugar industry in the various Colonies, the amount of time likely to be spent in each, and in the case of Jamaica, the additional time spent on the voyage. I am not aware that there is any settled practice in such matters.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Can the hon. Gentleman quote any precedents for the expenses of the two Commissioners sent out by the Secretary of State for the Colonies and paid special salaries being charged to the Colonial taxpayers and not to the British taxpayers?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir. There are a number of precedents, copies of which I shall be glad to show to hon. Members if they care to see them. One very recent case is that of Mauritius, where an inquiry on the same subject has taken place, and where the cost was borne by the Colony.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

DISTURBANCES.

Earl WINTERTON: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government in Great Britain proposes to issue any statement as to the causes of the outbreak in Palestine last year, either at the time of or after the issue of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry?

Dr. SHIELS: This question will be considered when the Report has been received.

Earl WINTERTON: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that up to the present the Government have made no statement of any kind on this most lamentable event, which resulted in the death of hundreds of people; and will he make representations to the Secretary of State that this House is entitled to be informed by the Government, after the issue of the Report, what their views are on the causes of the outbreak and the measures to be taken to avoid any such occurrence in the future?

Dr. SHIELS: I do not understand the attitude of the Noble Earl. This Commission was appointed, it has done its work, and it is now preparing its Report; and we are asked to make a declaration, or to decide upon the nature of a declaration, before the Report has been written.

Earl WINTERTON: I did not ask the hon. Gentleman to do anything of the sort. All that I asked was whether the Government, after the Report has been published, are prepared to make a statement of their own as to whether or not they agree with that Report.

Mr. SPEAKER: It will be better to await the Report.

Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. Do I understand you to say, Sir, that my question was not in order; and if so, may I respectfully ask why it was passed by the Clerks at the Table?

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not say that the Noble Lord's question was not in order; I only suggested that, after the answer has been given, he might wait for the Report.

Earl WINTERTON: May I respectfully point out that I asked the hon. Gentleman in my supplementary question if he would answer the question on the Paper, and—probably wrongly—I understood you to rule that ray question was out of order? That was my object in rising to a point of Order.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: On that point of Order. May I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that on a previous occasion the Government gave an undertaking to answer a similar question when the Report had been drawn up? My Noble Friend is now asking whether they will implement that promise or not?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Under-Secretary has already given the answer, and I do not see any object in repeating it.

MR. JABOTINSKY (SPEECH).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 43.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the speech delivered by Mr. Jabotinsky, at Tel Aviv, on 23rd December, 1929; and why steps were not taken under the Seditious Offences Ordinance Act with regard to that speech?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir. I have seen a report of the speech in question. I am not aware whether action on the lines suggested in the second part of the hon. and gallant Member's question was considered by the local authorities. I understand that Mr. Jabotinsky left Palestine two days after the speech was delivered.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he made an extremely inflammatory speech, that the position in Palestine is very bad, and that this gentleman was sentenced to 15 years in 1920 for a similar offence?

Dr. SHIELS: I quite agree that it would be generally advantageous if both Jews and Arabs would talk more calmly on these matters.

Captain E. N. BENNETT: Is it not a fact that in 1920 Mr. Jabotinsky was liberated from gaol after serving six weeks of his 15 years' sentence, and was deported on the distinct understanding that he was not to return to Palestine?

Dr. SHIELS: I was not aware of the statements that my hon. and gallant Friend has made, but I will certainly take note of them.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: On a point of Order—

Mr. SPEAKER: I will deal with the point of order in good time. Meanwhile, I hope hon. Members in all quarters of the House will assist me in preventing the system of supplementary questions becoming abused.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: We on this side consider that the situation in Palestine is a very dangerous one, and that we have a right to put a certain number of questions to the Minister if possible, and we ask for fair protection.

Mr. SPEAKER: If hon. Members have further questions to ask, it would be very much better to put them down separately instead of putting them as supplementaries.

ARRESTS AND CONVICTIONS.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Sheikh El-Muzaffar, the honorary secretary of the Moslem and Christian Association, a former mufti of the Turkish Army, and nine other leading Moslems of Jaffa were arrested on the night of 23rd November, 1929; that these men were tried by the administrative Governor of Jaffa and not by a judge or magistrate; that they were not allowed counsel and were all sentenced to exile and imprisonment at Acre, and were sent handcuffed to two convicted murderers; and that, owing to the illtreatment received, the Sheikh El-Muzaffar and Midhat-Effendi Habbab are now seriously ill in hospital; and whether he will look into this matter and have a full inquiry made?

Dr. SHIELS: I have no information on some of the statements in the question and must not be taken as accepting them as accurate. I am aware that a number of persons engaged in political agitation and a compaign of intimidation were arrested on the occasion mentioned and were sentenced under the Prevention of Crimes Ordinance. The Ordinance provides for the imprisonment of persons who, when ordered to do so, fail to give security to keep the peace or to be of
good behaviour. The circumstances were reported and fully gone into at the time, and I see no reason for making further inquiry now.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Why is there this reason for difference of treatment between Sheikh El-Muzaffar and Mr. Jabotinsky? Is it not because one is an Arab and the other a Jew?

Dr. SHIELS: No. I must repudiate such a suggestion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must be aware that these matters are under the general supervision of the High Commissioner, and you cannot expect us here to interfere in these details. We are satisfied that the procedure under which these convictions took place was perfectly right and proper.

Earl WINTERTON: Does this special Ordinance to which the hon. Gentleman refers supplement or take the place of the ordinary law?

Dr. SHIELS: I understand it supplements the former law, but is now, of course, part of the ordinary law.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the hon. Gentleman get exact information on the point if I put down a question?

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of inquiring into the present administration of justice in Palestine?

JEWS (IMMIGRANTS AND EMIGRANTS).

Mr. MARCUS: 49.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has figures for the past 10 years showing how many Jews have settled in Palestine and how much Jewish capital has been invested in it, also the effect of the Jewish effort upon the social, economic and cultural level of the country, including the Arab inhabitants?

Dr. SHIELS: The excess of Jewish immigrants over emigrants from 1st September, 1920, to 30th November, 1929, was approximately 72,000. There is no doubt that a very large amount of Jewish capital has been invested in Palestine during the period, but I am not in a position to give official figures. The last part of the question raises wide general considerations which could not be stated in numerical terms.

ARAB DELEGATION.

Mr. MARCUS: 50.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government, when the Arab delegation arrives in this country from Palestine in the near future, to invite accredited Arab and Jewish leaders to attend a joint conference, under Government auspices, for the purpose of attempting to reach an amicable settlement of outstanding differences?

Dr. SHIELS: The hon. Member's suggestion will be borne in mind. But I am unable to say whether circumstances will admit of its adoption.

ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES.

Mr. MARCUS: 51.
asked the. Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the British taxpayer has contributed towards the creation of the Jewish homeland m Palestine or the maintenance of the Palestine administration, or whether the civil administration of Palestine is entirely supported by means of its own internal revenue; and from what source the excess cost of the British forces stationed in Palestine and Trans-jordan over the cost of such forces if stationed in Great Britain is defrayed?

Dr. SHIELS: Apart from charges in respect of a force of British Gendarmerie which was established, under the orders of the Palestine Government, in order to enable reductions to be effected in the Imperial Garrison, no portion of the cost of the Civil Administration of Palestine has been defrayed by the British Exchequer. As regards the last part of the question, the excess cost of the normal Garrison, apart from works services in Transjordan, is borne by Palestine funds. The question of incidence of charge of the additional forces employed during the recent disturbances has not yet been settled.

DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 53.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether on or about the 26th November, 1929, he received a telegram from the Arab executive in Palestine objecting to the proposed signature of the formal agreement between the Crown agents for the Colonies and Mr. Moses Novomeysky and Major Tulloch for the grant of the
Dead Sea salts concession, on the ground that the agreement and concession were contrary to, and an evasion of, Article 11 of the Mandate; and what steps he has taken as a result of this communication?

Dr. SHIELS: I received the telegram from the Arab Executive to which the hon. Member refers. As the hon. Member is aware the preliminary agreement for the grant of the Dead Sea Salts Concession to Messrs. Novomeysky and Tulloch was signed in May last. I see no ground for the contention that the concession was contrary to and an evasion of Article 11 of the Mandate. No action was taken as a result of the telegram.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT (LAND FORCES).

Mr. FREEMAN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of calling an Army Conference of the great Powers with a view to a reduction of military forces?

The PRIME MINISTER: As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, the question of disarmament, including that of land forces, has been under careful consideration at Geneva for some time past. I hope that, at the conclusion of the Five-Power Conference, a further meeting of the Preparatory Commission will be held, which will enable the next Assembly of the League of Nations to arrange for the summoning of an International Disarmament Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (DISPLACED WORKERS).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the number of workpeople that will immediately be thrown out of employment as a result of disarmament and rationalisation of industry, he will state in detail what steps the Government are taking to see that these men are maintained in comfort when they are discharged?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend will, I am sure, realise that it would not be practicable to identify among the general body of unemployed those whose unemployment is attributable to disarmament and rationalisation, even if it were desirable to differentiate in the treatment to be given to them. I would
point out that disarmament and rationalisation are both calculated ultimately to improve the economic position of the country and, therefore, to add materially to the volume of employment generally available. The incomparable system of social services which this country possesses is designed to meet the needs of those whose employment may be affected by such action.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does that mean that, as far as disarmament is concerned, the firms where work is stopped are compensated and the workers are not? The same applies now in the Coal Mines Bill, where the colliery owners are going to be compensated for loss of profits and the workers are not.

The PRIME MINISTER: The whole question of the treatment of unemployment by insurance and otherwise is an offset to the circumstances and facts stated by my hon. Friend. The one is treated one way and the other the other.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: It will only give rise to controversy.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: On a point of Order. On this very important question of the provision of employment in these areas that are going to be so hard hit by armament reduction, am I not entitled to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister?

Mr. SPEAKER: We have only reached No. 46, and the time is twenty minutes to four. That is a sufficient answer to the hon. Member's point of Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON NAVAL CONFERENCE.

Colonel GRETTON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if any of the Powers taking part in the Naval Conference have undertaken to make reductions in their shipbuilding programmes similar or comparable to those already decided to be made in the British programmes of 1928–29 and 1929–30?

The PRIME MINISTER: Not so far as I am aware.

Sir C. CAYZER: Are we to understand that the Prime Minister proposes to pursue a policy of unilateral disarmament regardless of the facts and circumstances?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly not. This is a well-devised programme which is consistent with, and well within the requirements of national security.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

HUT TAX.

Sir R. HAMILTON: 56.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now state what action has been taken in respect of the £20,000, included in the Kenya estimates for 1930, representing arrears of Hut Tax not collected in 1929 on account of famine; and whether the Governor has been advised to exercise his powers of remission of this sum?

Dr. SHIELS: The Kenya estimates for 1930, as passed in the Legislative Council, have only just been received and are now being examined. The figures for native taxation have been revised since the estimates were prepared for submission to the Council, and it is not clear what sum is budgeted for as arrears of tax not collected in 1929 owing to famine. The position will have to be further investigated, and for the moment I cannot add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 23rd December.

COTTON EXPORTS.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 58.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the value of the cotton exports from Kenya for each of the last three years for which figures are available?

Dr. SHIELS: The figures required are as follow:—

£


1926
…
…
…
32,750


1927
…
…
…
15,080


1928
…
…
…
21,048

Sir A. SINCLAIR: How can the hon. Gentleman's figures be correct, seeing that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) stated last Wednesday in an interruption of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that no cotton was produced in Kenya.

Dr. SHIELS: I must leave the right hon. Gentleman to settle that matter with that hon. and gallant Member.

Sir BASIL PETO: Is it not obvious from the hon. Gentleman's reply that the exports of cotton from Kenya are absolutely negligible considering the amount of the exports from other Colonies?

Dr. SHIELS: I do not think that it is true to say that £30,000 and £20,000 are absolutely negligible sums.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (SEA-FISHERIES).

Sir R. HAMILTON: 57.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what action has been taken as a result of the survey of the sea-fisheries of Kenya and Zanzibar under Dr. von Bonde in 1928?

Dr. SHIELS: A majority of the Select Committee on the draft Estimates of Kenya for 1930 recommended that negotiations should be entered into with an experienced firm with a view to their carrying out experimental work in connection with the establishment of a fishing industry at Mombasa. Provision to the extent of £5,000 has been made accordingly in the Estimates as passed by the Legislative Council. This proposal will need careful consideration, and I am not yet in a position to say what action will be taken. As regards Zanzibar, no communication has yet been received from the Protectorate Government, but the matter will be taken up with them.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 8, any Private Business set down for consideration this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means may be taken after half-past Nine of the clock."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

MESSSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill,

That they have agreed to the Amendments made by the Commons to the Amendments, upon which the Lords had insisted, to the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.

TRADE WITH RUSSIA.

Miss WILKINSON: I beg to move,
That, in view of the grave state of unemployment in this country, particularly in the heavy industries, and the imperative need for new markets for British goods, this House is of the opinion that the Government should energetically explore every avenue which will lead to increased trade with the Russian Soviet Republic, and that, in order to put this trade on a stable basis, a commercial agreement should be arranged between the two countries at an early date.
We have had many unemployment Debates in this House. I have no doubt that before this Parliament finishes we shall have many more. The facts with regard to unemployment are quite well known to every one of us. There is no need to recapitulate them once again, but I want to bring before the House this afternoon the condition of affairs in the heavy industries of this country. We shall be dealing with them in detail in the second Motion which we shall discuss to-day, but in this House I represent one of the heaviest iron and steel producing areas of the world. I want the House, if it will, to look at two pictures. I want it to look at the condition of our industrial towns, those towns with sufficient equipment to be the workshop of the world, that immense capital equipment, able to turn out all kinds of machinery and shipping, to turn out coal, and to turn out all those heavy industrial products on which the prosperity of the country has depended in the past. The fact is that unemployment is heaviest among those particular industries. Apart from the unemployment in those industries our total of unemployed would be below normal. It is the unemployment in these heavy industries that makes our unemployment abnormal.
The construction of new roads is no solution for this condition of things. Even rationalisation of industry in itself would be no solution for the difficulties in these industries, because rationalisation would still leave the men there out of work, and many more of them. It is not a case that these are all old-fashioned workshops, mills or factories about which the Lord Privy Seal spoke the other day. Many of these establishments, which are either partially closed or working only half of their capacity, are among the finest industrial works in Europe. Nevertheless, we have these thousands of
skilled men out of work, and this valuable plant unemployed. What is this House going to do about it?
Let us look at the other side of the picture. The Lord Privy Seal has told us that the work that he is doing is necessarily slow, that the cumulative results must grow, and that the problem needs a great deal of very careful management, because it is so immense. It is all very well to say that, and we know that the right hon. Gentleman is doing his best, but these men are unemployed, and they want to know what is going to be done now, and we have to look to see what is going to be done now to relieve their position—something that will bring a quick return. Where are we going to find that? We are told that our markets are being closed against us: the Conservative party tell us that on every possible occasion. Where are our new markets to come from? I would ask the House to look at Russia, a country with 120,000,000 people, with territory representing one-sixth of the land surface of the globe, and with raw materials that are admitted to be illimitable. It is a country which is backward in its development. Ten years before the War Russia was beginning to equip itself with modern industrial plant. That country is being governed to-day—let us leave out of consideration for the moment the character of the Government, whether we agree with it or not—by a body of men and women who are determined that within a comparatively short space of time that great country, with its, millions of workers, is going to be thoroughly equipped as a modern industrial country. For this purpose they want locomotives, generators, tractors and machinery of all kinds.
I have presented to the House two pictures, one the condition of our own depressed heavy industries and the other the condition of Russia. If this House is to be considered as anything more than the Westminster Union Debating Society, it has to find some way of bringing these two countries into trading relations with each other. Russia offers to us just the kind of market that we want. Russia's demand is for industrial equipment. I will not bore the House with a lot of figures, but I will indicate a few of the things that are needed by Russia. Forty-two new power stations. Think what that
would mean for the Metropolitan Vickers Company! New motor units for Leningrad and Nijni Novgorod. Twelve new blast furnaces for the Ukraine. These are plans that are being worked out now. On a conservative estimate from American sources it is calculated that within the next three years £180,000,000 will be invested by Russia in industrial plant abroad, and £60,000,000 in agricultural machinery. That is the sort of market that Russia is offering to the world to-day. It has taken us a long time to realise the value of this market, and it is time that we bestirred ourselves to secure it, because there is not much time left.
In 1924, when this matter was being considered by the previous Labour Government, Russia was begging for credit and for trade. Those Members of this House who were in touch with the Russians then and are in touch with them now know that Russia has no need to beg for credit and trade. Russia to-day can pick and choose where her trade shall go. America and Germany have reaped where we have sown. The figures of German trade with Russia show that in one year, in 1927, German trade jumped up from 329,000,000 marks to 403,000,000 marks. America and Germany are our two biggest industrial rivals. We fought the War in 1914 to smash one of those rivals, and we crippled her. We are a very generous people, and since that War we have not only left the biggest potential market in the world to Germany but we have lent her large sums of money in order that she can develop her Russian market. One of the principal industrialists said recently that the Russian market was one of the biggest factors in putting post-War Germany on her feet.
What are Germany and America doing to encourage Russian trade, compared with what we are doing? Take America. America has had Bolshevik scares, just as we have had, but the American business men are realists, and they have realised the potentialities of the Russian market. The General Electric Company, for example, has granted a loan of 20,000,000 dollars for five years, and in the very centre of its plant it has 60 Russian engineers who are studying every detail of its plant and equipment. The General Electric Motor Company does
not consist of philanthropists. It is not doing that out of love for the Russian people. It has those Russian engineers there because the directors know that when those engineers have learned thoroughly the methods of that type of equipment they will go back to Russia as erectors of that type of equipment in Russia, and orders will folllow for the American concern. General Motors are doing the same thing. The Ford Company led the way in this exchange between Russian and American engineers. The International Harvester Company began by writing off a bad debt of 20,000,000 dollars which had been incurred by Russia some years previous to the War, and it has gone ahead with new Russian credits, and is now doing an enormous trade in agricultural machinery. Every one of these orders might have been placed in this country if we had desired them, and acted accordingly.
4.0 p.m.
I may be asked what the American and German banks do to discount Russian money. One of the leading American banks is doing that. Some of these big firms are themselves carrying their own credit. They are not only giving long-term credits themselves to Russia but they are encouraging the banks with which they are connected to give this credit. Germany is welcoming the Russian market with open arms. They granted a 300,000,000 mark loan for two years and when that was finished they gave another loan. What are we doing in this country? With our tremendous responsibility for our own unemployed men who are walking the streets of our big industrial towns, let us look at the Russian market. It is almost impossible to estimate the amount of Russian orders that has been lost due to the attitude that has been taken by this House. Just previous to the Arcos raid, as hon. Members know, arrangements had been made by the Midland Bank, under the Presidency of Mr. Reginald McKenna, to include a £10,000,000 loan which would have been used for credits for trade with this country. Within the last two months we have lost £2,000,000 of orders for heavy engineering works. I am giving these two cases only because I do not want to weary the House with long lists, but those are two examples. It has been
stated on the authority of an important association of engineering firms trading with Russia that £10,000,000 of orders could be secured from the Russian markets if from three to five years credit were available.
Why are we outside this market? Of course there is this question of debts which has always played such a large part in the discussions in this House. Let us look at this question again. We can, I think, divide it into two categories. There are the public debts, that is, the Tsarist debts and the War loans—the money lent to Russia during the War—and the counter-claims by Russia for those little flutters which the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) indulged in. I want to point out that, as a matter of fact, neither the British nor the Russians have really refused to negotiate on a basis of claims and counter-claims. There would be at any rate probably something like a fifty-fifty settlement. The public debt is therefore practically out of the way. When we come to private debts I suppose most Members in this House have had this interesting document sent to them—"Russian debts. The case of British Holders of Russian Bonds. Issued by the British Union of Russian Bondholders." It is a very interesting document. It deals at great length with the unfortunate position of governesses and one dock labourer who lent a sum to Russia during and after the War. We on this side of the House are getting used, when there is any question of large bondholders or anything touching the pockets of large whisky distillers or railway companies, to hear only of the one widow with one share. Most of these small holders of Russian Bonds have been bought out by speculators at knock-out prices and the present holders are demanding the face value of their bonds.
Let me again remind the House that in 1924, when the Labour Government were negotiating with Russia, an actual agreement had been signed, or at any rate had been reached, that interest should be paid on a portion of these debts, and had that arrangement not come in 1924, due to a rather cheap intrigue, upon which I do not think either party on the
other side look back with very much satisfaction, interest would have been paid ever since 1924. It would be possible once again to negotiate an agreement on those lines. Of course, the real trouble is the concessions and a child might just as well expect to get to the rainbow's end as for Members opposite to think that the Russian Government are going to hand back these concessions. They would not last one day if they did. The question of debts can be got out of the way. The question of compensation to concessionaires is a very different matter. If people are going to ask for compensation that can be dealt with, but not for the profits which might have been made if the Russian revolution had not happened. The whole problem centres round this question of credit. Trading facilities were smashed by the City of London which did not want competition.
I want to ask what really is the policy of the Government with regard to export credits, because it is, after all, their policy that counts. The Export Credits Committee is an advisory committee. The Export Credits Committee has taken the view that the Russian Government will probably only last 12 months, or at any rate, it cannot foresee what is likely to happen after 12 months, and it will only give a 12 months' credit. I understand that they gave that at from six to seven per cent. above the Bank rate of this country. It is perfectly impossible that any extensive trade can be arranged on terms of that kind. I would ask the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can say how much trade has been done on that basis? When you talk with the experts they say, "We are not discriminating against Russia; we are not giving more than 12 months' credit, because it is not the banking policy in this country. Cautious English bankers do not like investing their money in long-term industrial credits such as is done in Germany. They prefer to be more cautions and to keep their funds liquid." I think the less we talk about the caution of the English banks after the revelations of the last few weeks, the better. Is it not a fact that the banks of this country are pursuing a policy of keeping funds in order to allow the Hatrys to gamble with them, instead of putting them into sound industrial concerns that will give employment to the people of this country?
There are supposed to be super-men known as English bankers who are so wonderful that we must all bow down to their view without question. It is sheer nonsense. "By their fruits ye shall know them," and the fruits of the banking policy of this country are not rare and refreshing.
I am going to say, though I know that large numbers on the other side of the House will dispute it, that it is a fact that the Russian security is the best security in the world for trade. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is a fact. The important thing to remember, after all, is the fact that trade goes through one channel is in itself a guarantee. Here you have the security of these credits backed by a nation. I repeat that because of the ultra-moderation and the ultra-caution of this Government as of previous Governments, they are turning down the best security in the world, I have a letter here which was sent to me, I am glad to say, from the Junior Carlton Club by a gentleman who is the head of one of the biggest engineering firms in Russia. He says:
As a business man with 33 years' experience in Russia, I am extremely interested in the Resolution which you are bringing before the House of Commons. During the last seven years, I have visited Russia on many Occasions for business purposes, and it is most galling to see how British manufactures are being ousted from the Russian market by our chief competitors, the United States of America and Germany. It cannot be too often reiterated that our engineering products are preferred in Russia to those of our competitors, but the latter have been and are giving to the Russians longer credit terms than they are at present receiving from Great Britain. Were the Trade Facilities Acts re-euacted, or had we some combination of the Export Credits Scheme and the Trades Facilities Acts in operation under which our manufacturers could obtain trade credits for Russian orders, say, from three to 10 years, thousands of our skilled workmen of all trades would at present be drawing wages instead of existing on the dole. As you are probably aware, the Soviet trading organisations have honoured every bill bearing their endorsement which means that we, as a trading nation, have not contracted a single bad debt with Soviet Russia since November, 1917. That is a record which no other country can equal.
I am a Conservative in politics, but interested most of all in securing more export orders for this country, so as to mitigate the severities of our unemployment problem by increasing the activities of our half empty works and factories.
The second part of my Motion deals with the question of commercial treaties. People have said: "Why do you want a commercial treaty? America has not got a commercial treaty with Russia, and why cannot the same apply to this country?" I want to say, first of all, that the conduct of Germany and America towards Russia has not been so erratic, to put it as mildly as possible, as the conduct of this country towards Russia. I quote the remark of the chief representative of Russia in this country at the time of the Arcos raid:
If they raid our offices when we have diplomatic immunity, may they not raid for our commercial secrete?
After all, trade cannot be conducted in the atmosphere of an Edgar Wallace thriller. That is really the sort of atmosphere that surrounds all Russian commerce in this country. It is really disgraceful that a paper of the standing of the "Times" should have a leading article on the very morning that we are going to have this Debate, and that such a reputable paper should begin its article by telling its readers, on the authority of its Riga correspondent, of the execution of White officers.
We happen to know something about "Our Riga Correspondent." I remember when I was in Russia in 1921 reading, if I may say so, in a more reputable paper than the "Times," another long article by "Our Riga Correspondent" which informed me that I was one of a batch of people who were being beseiged in hotels in Russia by starving people in Russia and that Mr. Trotsky was dying of cancer of the throat. As I had just listened to a three hours' speech by Trotsky, delivered at the top of his voice, and was at that particular moment sitting on a sunny boulevard in Moscow with people laughing and moving happily in front of me, it was refreshing to read the views of "Our Riga Correspondent." Now we have "Our Riga Correspondent" popping up in the columns of the "Times" this morning and saying that 200 White officers have been shot. That is just not true. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is true!"] I have the best authority for saying that it is not true, and I say that the "Times" ought to be ashamed of itself, publishing a letter like that on the morning of a Debate when we are really trying to do what we can to get better relations with
Russia. It is like the story of the General who was kidnapped in Paris and spirited away in a specially constructed taxi-cab. It has now been discovered to be untrue. You get a two-column headline to put that thing across, but a little tiny paragraph in a back page to contradict it. [Interruption.] I think it would be better not to go further into that matter, because the General's friends now discover that they do not want any further inquiry.

Mr. HASLAM: The hon. Lady says that the story published in the "Times" of 200 naval officers being shot is not true. Is she going to give us the reason why she says it is not true?

Miss WILKINSON: I will give my reason. The authority I have is a telegram which has been received by the Russian Embassy in London from the head of the Government in Moscow with instructions to contradict it officially. I want also to raise the question of the commercial treaty with Russia. This is not merely a question for the Russian Government. I am not going to claim that every Russian is a perfect angel. If you are going to have trade negotiations they will not be between philanthropists with haloes but between hard-headed business men on both sides. We want a commercial treaty with Russia so that business men in this country will know where they are just as Russian business men will know where they are. May I quote an extract from the survey of overseas markets issued by the Committee on Industry and Trade:
One of the most powerful weapons which Germany is using to re-establish her position in foreign markets is the commercial treaty.
It would be an equally powerful weapon for this country. That is the case I want to put before the House—I am leaving the Amendment to be dealt with by the hon. Member who is going to second the Motion. I want to make an appeal to my own Front Bench on this matter and to remind them that they are a Labour Government and are not sent here by bondholders and concessionaires. Hon. Members on the other side will always remain the most admirable protectors of bondholders and concessionaires. This Government is sent here by the votes of working men and the votes
of an enormous percentage of the unemployed, and when the time comes—I hope it will be long delayed—and they appeal to the country it will be no use going to the unemployed if they have taken up an attitude merely of benevolent neutrality, merely of saying, "We will do what we can," not that the question of credits cannot be settled by us. It can be settled by the Government; and it must be settled by the Government. It cannot be settled by anyone else.
The attitude that this is a banking question and that they cannot do anything is really not good enough. I am not suggesting that this is what the right hon. Member is going to say; but that seems to have been the attitude in some quarters of the Government. It has not been the attitude of the Foreign Office. They have done extremely well in cutting through masses of red tape and putting their foot through a lot of nonsense in this matter. But what is the Department of Overseas Trade doing? That is what we ant to know. Representing as I do the unemployed in the heavy industries I want to know what the Government is doing in this matter. I was elected in 1924, during the Zinovey letter election, on the Russian Treaty question, and on nothing else. I talked about nothing but the Russian Treaty in that election and I was elected because they wanted trade with Russia, which is so imperative for the northern towns. I submit that when we have finished talking about Russian intrigues the real crime of the Soviet Government is that they have refused to allow Russia to become a financial colony of American and British bankers. We want credit; we want trade, that is What they say; and we are going to build up Russia for the Russian people, for the workers and the peasants of Russia. Hon. Members opposite may smile, but when the judgment of history is given those who have tried to put little obstacles in the way of this enormous experiment in human affairs will look extremely small.
It may be that we do not like the experiment, that some of us are afraid of it, but it is one of the biggest things in our life. It is an attempt, it may be of a small part of a great people—I will grant you that—to build up a planned State; to use its industries and commerce not merely as a matter of profit for a few
individuals, and through enormous sacrifices to build up a new life for a devastated country. It Is a great experiment, even if we do not like certain parts of it. I appeal to this House to take a bigger view than they have taken. Russian internal affairs are no concern of this country. Russian religious affairs are no concern of this country, and every intervention we have made to try and interfere in the internal conditions of Russia has only made them more rigid in the course they are pursuing. What is our concern are the unemployed in this country. Here we have an opportunity of setting thousands of men to work. I appeal to the Government to be big enough to cut through all the red tape, all the old ideas and old prejudices, which surround this question and take a bold step towards making arrangements for giving credit to Russia and thus setting to work many of our factories which to-day are lying idle.

Mr. HORRABIN: I beg to second the Motion which has been moved by the hon. Member in so interesting a speech.
I represent a constituency the principal town of which depends largely on certain engineering works, some of which have been engaged on orders for machinery for Russia recently despite all the limitations and handicaps which trade has had to face since relations were so summarily broken off some years ago. My constituency also adjoins the large boot and shoe area of Northampton, which has only been engaged to the extent of 75 per cent. of its full capacity for several years. A leading manufacturer, however, the other day, speaking on a deputation to the Government, said that within the past few months they had succeeded in specifying for Russian requirements for a very extensive order save for just one single requirement—sufficiently good credit.

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: May I inform the hon. Member that Russia does not purchase any boots and shoes from this country, but that they are exclusively manufactured in the national factories of Russia.

Mr. HORRABIN: I do not want the hon. Member to accept my own word for the statement and I can quickly produce sufficient Press reports of the deputation which waited upon a Government Department,
and was addressed by two leading manufacturers, both of whom had visited Russia last year and had come back with orders and specifications in their pockets for some hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of pairs of boots and shoes. The one thing which could not be settled was the question of credit. I merely mention that particular industry because of the geographical fact that my constituency borders on it. What traders and industrialists feel most keenly about this subject is that the fundamental issue, the economic realities, have been half hidden beneath a dead weight of fixed ideas and prejudices and preconceptions and, above all, of party political wrangles. I think it is Mr. H. G. Wells who says somewhere that international affairs in the nineteenth century were not made any easier by the habit which then existed of personifying various nations as tribal gods or, according to the point of view, tribal demons. People were called upon to fight for Britannia, for Germania, for John Bull, and so on, and there is something of that sort in the attitude of a great many of the opponents of trade with Russia and of many hon. Members opposite when they think about Russia.
Instead of seeing, as the Mover of the Motion described it, one-sixth of the earth's surface, instead of seeing a land which consists roughly of half of two vast continents peopled by 150,000,000 folks with their own opinions and habits and ways of life, instead of fixing their attention on these things, hon. Gentlemen always seem to see a sort of little band of rather melodramatic conspirators, the shadier sort of characters from an Edgar Wallace thriller, a thing which has little if any real relation to facts, a figment built up out of prejudices and fixed ideas. That atmosphere makes it impossible, apparently, for some people inside and outside this House to believe anything at all about Russia but the simple, melodramatic sort of stories which one would have thought would have been believed only by cinema fans or school-boys.
There is one other point on this subject of the difficulties in the way. I feel that a good many hon. Gentlemen opposite, in dealing with the subject of propaganda in relation to the Russian problem, do suffer from a certain inadequacy of his
torical knowledge; they do appear to think quite often that Socialism is something that was invented in Russia, and that if only they can contrive somehow or other, in this modern world of intercommunication and wireless, and all the rest of it, to post a continuous line of police right along the full length of the Russian frontier, they will be able to arrest the spread of ideas. I want to remind them that Socialism was not invented in Russia, that a good deal of the propaganda which they, whether sincerely or otherwise, pretend to be so horrified at, had been carried on for half a century in this country before the Russian Revolution took place, that in large part Socialism evolved in this country, and that if they think they can defeat Socialism and get round Socialistic arguments by repeating silly stories, they are mistaken. They have to meet the arguments of Socialism on the Floor of this House and in other places in this country, and those arguments will be put forward by Englishmen who are 100 per cent. English.
All this atmosphere, as the Mover of the Resolution has suggested, has been made infinitely worse by the policy of a great many organs of the Press in this country. The hon. Lady made some comparison of American trading relations, especially with the Soviet, and our own relations with that body. Let me for a moment make a comparison between the way in which the Soviet and the big social experiment which the Soviet is making is handled in American newspapers, and the way in which what is called Russian news is handled in our own. The columns of such newspapers as the "New York Times" are filled with documented, detailed, and critical articles analysing at every stage the experiment, financial and trading, which Russia is making. It is assumed, apparently, that American readers are intelligently interested in knowing the developments that are taking place in this very large corner of the globe. In our own papers, with one or two honourable exceptions, the only news we ever got under the heading of "Russia" is the sort of silly stories about forged notes, kidnapped generals and wholesale executions, which seem to belong to the world of the cinema rather than to the real world. They are
splashed with enormous headlines of type when first reported, and are contradicted in what I think the printers call little pica or minion in a back page later.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Are the stories untrue?

Mr. HORRABIN: Ninety-nine per cent. of them are hopelessly untrue.

Sir W. DAVISON: The murder of Russian priests, for instance?

Mr. HORRABIN: Let me quote as a sample of the way in which Russian affairs, even industrial affairs, are dealt with in this country. This is from a bulletin which, in common with most Members, I have received. It is a bulletin called "The Anglo-Russian News." On two pages of the last issue of that bulletin I notice such headlines as these:
Famine Prices. Rising Price Indices. Timber Exports: Plans Seriously Endangered. Industrial Plans Fail: Output below Expectations. Lena Goldfields: Labour Trouble in Russia. Precarious Position of the Soviet Metal Industry. Fuel Crisis Reported from all over Russia. Shortage of Foodstuffs in the Ukraine.
I submit that that is not news; it is hysteria. I ask hon. Members to compare that sort of thing with the recent verdict and judgment of so eminently capable an observer as Dr. Dillon. Dr. Dillon's name and reputation will be known to hon. Members. He has recently written an absorbingly interesting book about Russia, and if after his tribute hon. Members still prefer the cinema stories, one must give them up in despair. Not only are these fixed ideas and prejudices rampant regarding the more purely political aspects of the question, but even when we come to the definitely financial aspect, we come up against the same kind of thing. We find an unwillingness to depart from finincial dogmas and rules which have been built up as a result of financial needs and customs at some date, but which are obviously not adapted to the needs of this particular case.
Whenever the financial aspect of the question is considered we have the old argument trotted out about the trade balance as between England and Russia—the adverse balance. It is referred to in the Amendment which is to be moved, though I am not quite clear from the
phrasing of the Amendment in what way this particular balance is to be handled. It is surely impossible, and anyone who knows anything about international trade knows that it is impossible, to isolate the debit and credit account of two countries and get a complete picture of their relations from that bare statement. It is a truism at this time of day to talk about international trade being triangular. It would be truer almost to say that it is polygonal. It is impossible to isolate two countries on the basis of a bare statement of accounts and to decide whether that trade is beneficial to one side or the other.
In any case why is this argument only brought forward or most often brought forward in the case of Russia? There is an adverse trade balance with this country in the case of Belgium, Canada, France and the United States, and, as an hon. Friend remind me, in the case of the Dominions, But it is seldom argued that because of this adverse balance we should cease trading with those countries. It is, however, specially mentioned in relation to the Russian case. At least I would suggest that the most sensible way of making our trade balance would be to carry out the spirit and terms of the Resolution. If we can increase our exports to Russia that surely is the most effective way of redressing the adverse trade balance, and it is that which we suggest in the Resolution. I want to urge, as the Mover of the Resolution has done, that at this time of day the old "take it or leave it" attitude in regard to foreign customers is wholly impossible to our manufacturers. We do need to take some steps to meet the requirements of particular customers and markets, and to do our utmost to meet them in whatever way we can. So that I can be quite specific the House will, perhaps, permit me to read one or two details of orders—this is a list from Russian sources—which would be placed in this country if the question of credits could be satisfactorily settled

1. Timber carrying ships with a total tonnage of 20,000 tons at a cost of £5,000,000.
2. Thirty-six trawlers costing, roughly, £1,000,000.
3. Tractors. From 3,000 to 5,000 Vickers-Crayford Tractors wanted at a cost, of £1,500,000.
1938
4. Flax working machines of the kind made by Combe, Barbour and Mackie, at a cost of about £1,000,000.
5. Railroad steel tyres, £100,000.
All those orders are waiting and can be secured now if in this matter of credits we can come to terms with the Russian trading representatives. The loan of £10,000,000 which fell through because of the raid on the Arcos offices would have meant—so a leading trade union official of our largest engineering union calculated—employment for 59,000 men for a year at a wage of £3 a week. I do not think there is need to stress these points further. I know that a great many hon. Members want to share in this discussion. What we are stressing is that a decision on these points is a matter of urgency, that orders are going at the present time to other countries and to our industrial rivals. Not only are orders going to those countries, but technicians from those countries are going to Russia, and Russian engineering students are going to those countries to learn their methods and how to use their tools and machines. This is a matter of definite urgency. We have factories which are not waiting to be rationalised before they can compete with German and American rivals, for they have been rationalised already and have the most up-to-date plant in the world. Yet they cannot get orders because of the failure of Government so far to give them the necessary backing in this matter of credit.
I appeal to the Government earnestly to deal with this subject as a matter of urgency and not to allow the conclusion of a commercial agreement with Russia to await the settlement of points concerning debts and other questions which have been raised in negotiations with the Soviet. A week ago we had a Debate on Empire Free Trade. I am speaking in this Debate as a Free Trader, but it seems to me that, in the twentieth century, Free Trade must mean something more than the merely passive thing Which is meant in the nineteenth century when circumstances were different. It is not a question merely of an absence of barriers and of our door being open. In the present state of world competition, we must be prepared to go out and ascertain the needs and requirements of our customers and endeavour to meet them. I appeal to the Government to give a lead to the traders and industrialists of
this country to go out and capture this new market, instead of relying merely on the old alternative policy of putting a ring fence around the old ones.

Sir HILTON YOUNG: In what I have to say, I prefer to follow the example set by the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) in the greater part of her speech, rather than that offered by the hon. Member who has just spoken. It is better that this Debate should be confined to commercial aspects of the question, and that we should turn away from political aspects and from the discussion of the merits of the Soviet Government's policy. If I do so, it is not because there are not deep feelings on this side of the House in connection both with recent events in Russia, and with the question of propaganda mentioned by the last speaker. It is because the commercial argument can only be prejudiced by the passions of the political argument and since there is, in our view, a complete answer to the arguments of hon. Members opposite, based on commercial grounds alone, that answer may best be given by itself.
That enables me to proceed to find what common ground there is between us. In the opening part of the observations of the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough undoubtedly there was common ground to be found. We on this side are as anxious as anyone to join in a search for any possible remedy for the evil of unemployment. I sometimes think that hon. Members opposite will never get quite the full value that can be got out of the proceedings of this House, until they are willing to realise the sincerity and earnestness with which the whole House is prepared to co-operate in the effort to find a remedy for unemployment. We recognise the gravity of the evil; we are earnest in searching for a solution, but, while willing to join with the Mover of the Motion to
explore every avenue which will lead to increased trade
we are not prepared—and no man of common sense can be prepared—to join in the exploration of avenues which lead nowhere. There is no more than a certain amount of time, no more than a certain amount of money, no more than a certain amount of effort to be devoted by any country to the curing of its evils
and the restoration of its prosperity. What we deeply deplore in the Russian movement which is carried on by the Labour party is that in our opinion it is based on an illusion and can only lead to a waste of time, money and effort. That is the principal answer to the observations of the Mover and Seconder of the Motion. Though we sympathise with the purpose which they seek to accomplish, we say that the method by which they seek to secure that purpose is based upon a great illusion—the illusion that there is much help for our national difficulties to be found in the prospects of increased Russian trade.
It was once said that there is no tragedy so great as that of a theory killed by a fact. There is for us to-day a tragedy in the bitter fact which kills the rosy theories put forward by the Mover of the Motion. Hon. Members will realise the fact which kills the theory, that there is much hope for us in Russian trade, if they but consider the figures of Russian trade before the War. I will trouble the House with only one set of figures. Before the War, taking a five years' average up to and including 1913, our imports from Russia were less than 6 per cent. of our total imports and our exports to Russia were less than 3 per cent. of our total exports. [An HON. MEMBER: "What are the total figures?"] I could give figures, but I think the percentages are more instructive. That is the very maximum—that is the whole field of possibility in foreign trade which we are considering to-day. When we consider the scale, the volume, of the trade possibilities with which we are concerned in this Debate, it is clearly idle to base any such large hopes thereon, as are constantly held out in speeches on this subject from the Labour party. Our pre-War trade with Russia was of the same order and magnitude as our trade with Holland. How ridiculous it would seem if we were to hear of hopes for the redemption of the prosperity of the country, based on the expansion of our trade with Holland. Hon. Members may think that Holland is not comparable with Russia in regard to the nature of its trade with us. I therefore take another country which is similar, in the nature of its trade. Our pre-War trade with Russia was of about the same order and magnitude as our trade with New
Zealand, from which we import raw materials and to which we export manufactured goods. I say with confidence that there is more hope for the future of employment in this country in the expansion of trade with New Zealand than in the expansion of trade with Russia.
When I mention the figures of our Russian trade before the War, namely, 6 per cent. of our total imports and 3 per cent. of our total exports, as representing the maximum volume of trade with which we are dealing it must not be forgotten that, already, a large proportion of that trade has been recovered. In the matter of hopes for the future we are dealing with a much smaller volume of possible increase in trade than that indicated by those figures. We have already got back a large proportion of our pre-War trade. I will trouble the House with one more comparison in figures. Unfortunately the whole of the figures for 1929 are not yet available, but we can base a rough estimate of Russian trade in 1929 on the figures for the first nine months. On that basis, there is reason to expect that our imports from Russia in the course of 1929 will prove to have amounted to about £21,500,000, and our exports to Russia will prove to have amounted in the same period to about £4,500,000. Already we have recovered half of our pre-War import trade from Russia and one-third of our pre-War export trade to Russia. That means that the whole possibility upon which these hopes, as I say, these illusions, are based, is represented by a figure of 3 per cent. only of our total import trade and 2 per cent. of our total export trade. Anybody who realises the actual percentage increase in foreign trade which would be necessary to restore prosperity and give work to our unemployed, will realise also from those figures that the remedy proposed in the Motion is totally inadequate to the actual scale and nature of the disorder which it is proposed, to cure.
Let us take the matter one step further. Supposing that there is still this 3 per cent. of import trade and 2 per cent. of export trade to be recovered, in comparison with pre-War times, what is the prospect of our ever being able to get back to the figure of pre-War trade with Russia? There is very little prospect indeed. There are many strong reasons
why we should not be able to do so. There is the most obvious reason of all, that the Russia of to-day is not so big a country as the Russia of those days; and, what is very important in that connection is that the parts which have been lost by Russia are some of the richest and most civilised. For instance, Russia no longer includes Russian Poland, including some of the most fertile field of agricultural production on the Continent of Europe, many of the richest mineral deposits, and part of the most highly organised productive and industrial regions in Eastern Europe. That is lost to Russia. Then Finland has been lost, with all its forests. The Baltic States have been lost, with their important centres of trade, transport and distribution. Here is one obvious and strong reason why we cannot expect to get the same amount of trade with Russia as we got before the War. There is another and, perhaps, an even stronger reason; that is the shattered condition of the economic organisation of Russia. Of late, some advance has been made in its restoration by the reintroduction of a certain amount of the odious and detested capitalist system, but the whole economic organisation of the country is still reeling under the destruction wrought by war, the blows of the Revolution and the effects of 10 years of Communist government. The transport system is in a much more backward state than it was at the time of the Revolution. The industrial system is languishing and in a state of decay. More important than either of these is a matter that concerns the real basis of Russian wealth, that is agricultural production. Agricultural production is confined and depressed by the present system of administration. The greatest wealth of Russia always was, and always will be as far as the future can reasonably be foreseen, its agricultural production. Since the coming into power of the present Russian Government, that production has been discouraged by many means. At the present time—if I may break my self-imposed rule and make a momentary reference to Russian politics—we cannot affect to be ignorant that the Russian Government is embarking on a fresh campaign for the suppression of the prosperous peasant. In these conditions, it is idle optimism to expect that the conditions of trade with Russia can be even
as good as they were before the War. In fact, it is very probable that we have seen about the maximum of the trade that can be conducted under present conditions with Russia, and that many long years must elapse before it will be possible to increase that trade considerably.
5.0 p.m.
There are other factors at work, a realisation of which must prick this bubble of illusion about the possibilities of Russian trade—factors which have no particular relation to the political history of Russia, but which relate to the whole economic history of Eastern Europe since the War. I invite anybody who doubts them to consider, for instance, the nearest comparable foreign country. It is very hard to find any country completely comparable with Russia in order to conduct a test-experiment as to what trade with Russia is likely to be, but I will take Russia's nearest neighbour, Rumania. Rumania had the same general character of trade with us before the War; that is, we got from it raw materials and sent to it manufactured articles. If you look at the history of our trade with Rumania since the War, you will see that it has languished, and, allowing for the difference in the value of money, it is now less than it was before the War. The reason, as is well known, is that during the War Eastern Europe learned to supply itself from other sources than the British producing machinery, and so it has been with Russia. That part of the world now has learned to get its supplies elsewhere. In the hope of recovering trade with Russia, you must reckon with that turn of the general stream of supply. Nobody has been able yet to see any way of rediverting it from other countries towards our factories. Equally hard is it to see any way of rediverting hither the stream of Russian demand.
An important aspect of trade with Russia is undoubtedly the aspect of indirect trade. Something, no doubt, can be done to make the Russian market more important to this country by the restoration of the social and economic fabric of Russia, but the probability is that that will not be expressed in the form of direct trade with this country, but that it will be expressed in the form of indirect trade through foreign countries and through our Dominions. If that
be so, the whole of this propaganda, directed to the encouragement of direct trade with Russia, is beside the mark. What we should do is to seek to foster the more favourable markets, trusting to the general increase of the world's prosperity to bring Russia along too.
Let me turn to the contention in this Motion that there should be a commercial treaty with Russia. Why. we ask, should there be a commercial treaty? We manage to trade with most of the other nations without special treaties of the sort. The attitude of every party, I imagine, is this, that if trade with Russia can be increased on the ordinary lines by which trade is conducted with other countries, by all means let it be so. But why should there be special treaties with Russia? It appeared quite clearly from the speech of the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough that, in advocating a special treaty with Russia, she is prepared to advocate special favours to the Russian purchaser. The Russian purchaser, under the working of the Russian State, is the Russian Government, so that the Proposer of this Motion, and I suppose, the party opposite, are prepared to advocate special favours for the Russian Government, and that means special credit favours.
That brings us to a consideration of those outstanding facts of "he credit history of the Russian Government which it is impossible to ignore. think the matter deserves, I will not say more serious treatment, but more considered, and, I think, more sympathetic treatment than was given to it in some of the observations of the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough. Why should one brush aside so lightly the misery, the disappointment of legitimate expectations, the bitter sense of wrong, which have been brought to tens of thousands of industrious, honest folk, not only in this country, but in other countries of Europe, by the repudiations of the Russian Government?

Miss WILKINSON: I should be the last to wish to give the impression that I was brushing aside these disappointments lightly. My point was that an agreement had been come to on debts, which was upset by the 1924 Election, and that it could be come to now.

Sir H. YOUNG: That is a point which I will deal with in a moment. I received an impression from some of the hon. Member's observations about governesses that she made light of the matter. I am happy that she should have corrected the impression. These were bitter wrongs. See what the actual facts were! At the time of the revolution, the economic system of Russia derived some of its most hopeful factors from actual properties owned and run in Russia by foreign owners, from factories which gave an example of efficiency to the industrial world of Russia, from mines developed as properties by foreign owners, with enormous sums of capital, without which those natural resources of Russia could not have been developed, and from forests and similar estates. They have been nakedly confiscated.
As to the alleged willingness to make good this wrong, I speak with some experience, having taken part in prolonged and difficult negotiations to find some way out of that attitude of the Russian Government, at The Hague, in 1923. Now, the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough speaks very lightly about the possibility of a settlement of this matter by compensation. If it be possible, why, in the name of all that is equitable, has it not been done? On the first occasion on which I ever appeared in a Law Court, I was retained to defend a limited company which was in debt, and against which a winding-up petition had been brought. I proved, to my own satisfaction at least, that the company was quite capable of paying its debts; whereupon the Judge replied, "You have proved to me that the company can pay its debts. Now tell me why it does not." That is the question which should be addressed to the Russian Government. If it is in a position to settle, why does it not do the honest thing and settle at once?

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Is it not a fact that, in the Addendum to the Trade Agreement of 1921, Russia agreed in principle to pay compensation, that in the Preamble to that Agreement it was distinctly stated that the Agreement was to be considered as preliminary to a general agreement to be negotiated between the two countries, and that we have never given the Russians an opportunity to carry out that pledge?

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member has only stated one side of the case. I will attempt to state the other side, and that is this, that the substance of that Agreement was that the British owner was to be compensated out of British money—

Mr. TAYLOR: Not in the trade agreement of 1921.

Sir H. YOUNG: —and that is an arrangement that has never appealed to the sense of justice and of honesty of the greater part of the nations.

Mr. WISE: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to any clause or phrase in any Treaty or Agreement or draft Treaty which in any way justifies his statement that British creditors were to be repaid for money subscribed to loans made to Russia by this country?

Sir H. YOUNG: As the hon. Member knows well, he must study the whole effect of the Agreement proposed by the Labour party at that time. If he does, he will come to the same conclusion that I do, and that is that the effect of that Agreement is that there would have been no payment of a single penny of compensation unless funds had been provided by the British taxpayer to pay it.

Mr. WISE: The right hon. Gentleman is expressing an opinion, and that is all there is to support his statement.

Sir H. YOUNG: To get a fair account of the basis of that opinion, I must read the whole of the Agreement through, as one always must, in any big international negotiation. I willingly give way to the hon. Member, as I know he has an intimate knowledge of these questions, but he must really bring that knowledge to my support in an account of the matter which is patent on a reasonable construction of the whole negotiation.
Let me turn to the question of debts, which is, I think, deserving of rather more serious consideration that that which it has received. There are three categories of these debts, as to which the Soviet Government have made the most conspicuous, the most inexcusable, of all repudiations that have ever occurred in the history of international credit. There are, first of all, the debts of the Imperial Government. Those debts
were borrowed largely for social purposes; they were borrowed inter alia for famine relief and for the construction of productive works. The defence of their repudiation of these by the Soviet Government is contained in one word used by the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough, when she referred to the "Tsarist" debts. Is that a real answer? Is any responsible Member of this House going to give support to the contention that there is no continuity of responsibility in a great nation because of a change of government? The argument of the Soviet Government, that it is entitled to repudiate the Tsarist debts, is precisely on the same footing as the recent pronouncement of the Congress in India. Is any hon. Member opposite going to support the contention, raised by the Indian Congress, that they will be entitled at some future time to repudiate the National Debt incurred by the Imperial Government of India?
The second category of debts is municipal debts. The municipalities, including the two greatest cities of Russia, Petrograd and Moscow, borrowed money in this country upon which they based their modernisation and to which their present inhabitability by the Russians, among others the officials of the Communist party, is due. The third category is the most glaring case of all: it is the money borrowed from the savings of the British investor to develop the economic system of Russia in its most vital aspect, namely, in its transport system. At the present moment the people of Russia and the Government of Russia are enjoying the proceeds of those loans. Day by day money obtained from the investment of the savings of small British investors is pouring into the pockets of the Russian Government. Is there any justification in equity for this repudiation?
But is this entirely a case for the consideration of the interests of the particular British investor only? It is not at all. The hon. Member for East Middleshrough referred with scorn to the fact that these debts have been bought up by speculators. I believe that to be absolutely at variance with facts. I cannot accept the authority of the green pamphlet in the hand of the hon. Member. But even if it were true, is there not a bigger question than that of the
rights of particular British investors? What is the position of this country in the great world of international finance? We are still one of the greatest creditor nations of the world. Our prosperity, our solvency, is based upon the payments we receive from foreign nations for our investments abroad. A little calculation made the other day showed that the greater part of the maintenance of the unemployed in this country could be paid, as a matter of scale, out of the return we get on our foreign investments in tin and rubber. It is to that extent that our social scheme is based upon foreign investment. Foreign investment is based upon the sanctity of international obligations.
The economic structure of this country is built upon an arch, the keystone of which is credit, and credit is based upon nothing more nor less than the obligation to repay a debt. Could there be a more deliberate act of suicide on the part of the British nation than to perform any act which would have the effect of furthering the idea that credit can be dealt with lightly and that international obligations can be disregarded? It should be the forefront of the policy of this nation rigidly to enforce whatever sanctions there may be to secure the sanctity of international credit. There is only one sanction by means of which it can be enforced, and that is that if anybody repudiates a debt he shall get no further credit until he has purged his fault.
Let me say a word on the extension of the export credit scheme to Russia. The nature of that scheme can be seen from the title on the outside of a little book issued by the Department to explain the scheme. It is a scheme for insuring and financing credits for exports. It is a credit insurance scheme, so that what the British Government have agreed to do under this scheme is to insure the credit of the Russian Government. I applaud that feature which the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough criticised, that some special restrictions have been imposed upon the extension of credit to Russia. The general scheme extends to five-year general credit. It is plain to anybody practically acquainted with such transactions that a scheme for insuring finance and credit for general transactions over a period of five years would be nothing more or less than an indirect way of giving a loan to the Russian Government
Let us remember that there are no other importers in Russia than the Government, which monopolises foreign trade. So I welcome anything which will tend to restrict the removal of what I have described as the only sanction we have to enforce the sanctity of international obligations. There is very curious reading in this pamphlet for those who are contemplating extension of the scheme to Russia. I find in it one passage that says that the Department of Overseas Trade
will not in any circumstances encourage trade with speculative, doubtful or irregular customers.
I must leave the question of speculation in connection with the Russian Government for hon. Members to decide for themselves. May we not, however, justly describe the Soviet Government as a doubtful customer! [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Even in that there seems to be a difference of opinion. Rut there can be no difference of opinion that Russia is an irregular customer. There has been a certain irregularity without doubt in the discharge of the debts of Russia, and certain irregularities in regard to its behaviour towards foreign property. There is another provision in the scheme; I should like to invite the Secretary of the Department to explain how it is to be fulfilled. The provision is that everybody who brings in business to he guaranteed under this scheme is to supply "a recent report on the purchaser." Of course, the purchaser in this case will be the Russian Government. I should like to urge upon the Secretary of the Department to put the reports which he receives upon the Russian Government at the disposal of the House, both as regards the speculative nature of the transactions and the regularity of the customer.
It is an illusion which leads to a waste of effort to suppose that anything that the British Government can do, or anything which the British nation can do can much increase trade with Russia. That is a matter dependent on the actions of the Russian Government, It is within their power to break the ice block, to pull down the barricades, to do away with the ridiculous monopolistic restrictions by which they make trade difficult, and to get rid of that blot upon their
escutcheon which makes credit impossible. There are two things which may serve to increase trade with Russia. The first is the restoration of Russian credit by the recognition of obligations; the second is that the Russian Government should open once more the natural courses of trade by abolishing the monopolistic organisation which makes foreign trade difficult, and by setting free once more for the purpose of trade that which all Russian trade has been based upon in the past, the initiative and the credit of the Russian peasants. As long as the credit of the Russian peasant is abolished by the monopoly of foreign trade, there can be no firm basis of trade with Russia; but were that credit to be set free we could see a return to the maximum trade possible, although that maximum would not meet the dreams of hon. Members opposite.
Our reason for resisting the Russian propaganda of the Labour party expressed in this motion is not in the matter of its professed object: we seek the same object, which is to relieve unemployment. The reason is disbelief in the illusion that there is any such great hope in Russian trade as the Labour party hold, and a firm conviction that the whole of this propaganda serves only to waste effort by concealing the true direction in which efforts should be made, the direction of trade within the British Empire.

Mr. STRACHEY: I wish to address my remarks to the benches in front of me rather than to the benches opposite, for, happily for the future of trade between this country and Russia, and, indeed, happily for the future of British trade in general, the future of intercourse of the two nations is in their hands rather than in the hands of the benches opposite. I would, however, address one or two of my opening remarks to the speech to which we have just listened. We on these benches must agree that it was a speech on the subject of Russia slightly less pathological than the speeches from those benches to which we are accustomed to listen. On the other hand, it had a factor in it which seemed to me perhaps even more depressing than that pathological hysteria on this subject with which we are familiar—that element in it which I can only describe as the most abject economic defeatism which I have
even encountered. The main argument appeared to be that our trade with Russia before the War was very bad and very small, that now it was even worse, that there was practically no hope of restoring it even to the level at which it was before the War, and that really it would not be much good even if we did that.

Sir H. YOUNG: I did not say trade with Russia was bad or small; on the contrary, I said that it was normal.

Mr. STRACHEY: The right hon. Member's point was that the normal trade with Russia was extremely small. I realise that the party opposite always has some difficulty in modernising their ideas and bringing them up-to-date, but one might suppose that a change so striking as the change which has taken place in Russia between now and before the War would not wholly escape their notice. As a matter of fact, it is the greatest mistake in the world, as every active, forward-looking industrialist knows, to belittle the Russian market. I have here a few of the actual figures of our export trade. We are at present exporting £725,000,000. Our biggest customer is India, which takes £83,000,000. Australia takes £55,000,000, the United States £46,000,000, Germany £40,000,000, Canada £34,000,000 and the Argentine £31,000,000. These are our big bulk customers, and their purchases amount in the aggregate to £290,000,000. The whole of the rest of our export trade—£435,000,000 worth—goes to countries which, individually, take quite a small amount of that trade, and it is the greatest mistake in the world to belittle any particular market, even though that market to-day is a small one. The Russian market has been since the War as large as £6,000,000. That compares very favourably with the purchases of a great many of our other customers. No one on these benches is pretending for a moment that Russian trade in itself will cure unemployment. There is no such grotesque suggestion, but we realise that this trade, even at its present volume, and certainly because of its potentiality, is one of the really hopeful and important factors in an immediate improvement in our industrial situation.
To turn from the benches opposite to the point of view of the Government on this matter, it causes a good deal of surprise
on these benches that the Government have not been more active in pushing British interests in this market. We have had from the Ministers who are charged with the conduct of industrial affairs strong speeches subscribing to what I may call the "export trade" view of British prosperity. The Lord Privy Seal, in particular, has been particularly strong in pressing that the only cure for our industrial difficulties is an increase in exports. I cannot share that opinion with him. I have never been able to understand why in some mysterious way it is considered that a factory is doing real work if it is providing shirts for China-men, while it is not really working if it is providing shirts for the inhabitants of the town in which it is situated.
While, however, I cannot subscribe to the tremendous emphasis on our export trade, I should be the last to suggest that every effort should not be used by the Government to maintain our export trade—not so much with the hope of so enormously extending it as to provide a remedy for unemployment, but rather because I think that we shall have to fight very hard to maintain it at its present level; and any new possibilities which may be opened up deserve our most earnest consideration. The short and obvious answer to the speech to which we have just listened is not an academic consideration of whether the Russian market is smaller or larger than it, was before the War, or whether the Soviet Union have lost such important economic territories as off-set the growth of population in the last 15 years, which the hon. Gentleman omitted to mention. That might be an interesting consideration into which to go. What is much more practical is that the actual orders are waiting; that we know that, given successful commercial and financial arrangement", the actual orders are there ready and waiting, orders which, I make bold to say, could within 12 months lift our export trade to Russia far above what it was in 1913.

Mr. HASLAM: Are the payments ready?

Mr. STRACHEY: Yes, the payments would be arranged in precisely the same way as the payments for other exports—a certain percentage of cash-on-delivery and the payments arranged over a period
Is the hon. Member really suggesting that we export for cash in the other markets of the world? A more preposterous statement could not be made.

Mr. HASLAM: I was speaking of payment by Russians for goods we send them.

Mr. STRACHEY: Certainly; and I was suggesting that the Russian Government, or the Russian co-operative organisation which makes these purchases, would pay in precisely the same way and under the same commercial arrangements as other purchasers from this country. I was suggesting that those orders are actually ready to be placed in this country if sufficient financing can be given. What is the criterion as to whether that financing is some special favour to Russia or not? What criterion have we that we are striking a good enough bargain? We have the perfectly clear indication of what the other industrial countries of the world are giving Russia. Orders are not being placed in this country, but are being placed in Germany and in the United States of America. Do hon. Members opposite really suggest that American and German exporters and finance houses are doing this out of philanthropy, out of sympathy with the Russian Government? If it pays great firms like General Motors of America and the General Electric Company of America to extend credit on such terms, surely that is a fairly clear indication that it would pay this country to do the same. The absolutely businesslike and sensible market value for Russian orders can be established by the price which the Russians can get elsewhere. [Interruption.] I hear the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) asking me why we do not do it. That is just the question I am going to ask our Front Bench.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I said, what is stopping our traders from doing it?

Mr. STRACHEY: Our traders are doing it up to the limit of credit which they can give. Individual firms are taking very considerable orders from Russia. We have had an example of that from the hon. Member who seconded this Motion. Vickers are taking orders from Russia. They are taking those orders at the competitive price—and the competitive price for the credit, too. But,
of course, an individual firm can only extend credit up to a certain proportion of its capital—that is so in any market, whether it be Russia or the Argentine—and our firms, individually, are not to-day in a position to extend credits on anything like the scale which the vast American organisations are able to give. The General Electric Company of America are at present executing an order for the Russian Government by which they supply £1,000,000 worth of electrical machinery per annum over a period of five years, and have spread the credits over a long time. It would be perfectly impossible to ask that of any British firm—I think I may say that safely; even the strongest would not have the free financial resources, unless backed by a Government credit institution or a British finance house, to make an arrangement of that sort. That is the real crux of the matter, that in this country individual firms cannot grant these long credits, as is the case in America. And in Germany, of course, the Government guarantee the payments, and guarantee them at a very low rate indeed.
Here we have at last extended our Export Credits Scheme to Russia; we must give credit to the Government in that respect, at any rate. Whatever hon. Members opposite may think of that, it is quite clear what the industrialists of this country think of it, because ever since they have been besieging the export credits scheme. They seem to consider the method to be of value to this country. But I want to draw the attention of the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade to two decisions which have been taken by the Advisory Committee. Those two decisions appear to me very largely to nullify the whole effect of the Government's own decision to extend the export credits scheme to Russia. One decision limits credits to Russia to a period of one year, a disastrous limitation, which means that all the bigger business is lost to British firms; and the second decision, has put Russian orders in the category of orders for which the total charge of insurance of the credit and the credit itself comes out to something like 12 or 13 per cent. Unfortunately, those two conditions make our credits too expensive; the Russians can get cheaper credits in America and in Germany. It is simply a hard business question, and,
therefore, we are getting only the fag-ends, the small bits of business. Hon. Members opposite ought not to think we get this large percentage, this large profit, out of Russia; not at all. It is not Russia that has to pay that 13 per cent.—these usurious terms. It is the unfortunate British firms who have to pay. They have to pay that high sum, and if they attempt to get it back in the price of their goods then, of course, they will limit drastically the amount of business they can do.
I suggest to the Government that the time has come when they should review this position. If they meant anything by their decision of last August extending the Exports Credits Scheme to Russia, surely they ought not to be willing to see that decision very largely nullified by these provisions? I am not suggesting that the Exports Credits Scheme is an ideal method of doing business with Russia; I do not think it is, but even under that Scheme, which is all we have got at present, we could obtain, I make bold to say, at least £10,000,000 worth of new orders at once, but for those two decisions. The Government cannot escape from their responsibility in this matter by putting it on to any Advisory Committee. It is for the Government to make up their minds whether those orders should be placed in this country, whether that work should be done in British factories by British workers, or should be done elsewhere. It is fairly clear what credit terms will have to be granted to get those orders; it is easy to see that by noting what credit terms are given elsewhere, and also, of course, what credit terms are given here to-day by individual British firms up to the limit which they themselves can afford to give. In rough figures, it is a charge of about 8 to 9 per cent.—the credit and the insurance taken together—with a five years' term. It is not a question of opinion, of what I say or of what any other hon. Member says.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I know that Becos grant a bill which is discounted by Arcos on which the percentage works out at 12½ per cent. It is so with respect to some of the biggest transactions.

Mr. STRACHEY: Some individual transactions may have been done on that
basis, but it is very easy for the hon. Member to look up the actual facts as to the vast bulk of Russian business, both with this country and elsewhere, and I think he will find that, with certain exceptions, it averages up to about the figure I have mentioned. That is the figure at which Russia can buy in the world market to-day, and if we wish to do business we shall have to do it somewhere about that figure—dependent, of course, upon the class of business and the particular article and all the other considerations which attach to an individual transaction.
I want to turn to a very curious reaction which has come in the world today through our refusal to give credit to Russia. What have Russians to do in the present condition of credit blockade in order to get any purchases from the outside world? They have to pay for them under the method of barter, that is to say, they must at all costs export goods from Russia in order to pay for the goods they import. They have to force their exports all over the world, exports they can ill-afford to send abroad and which they should keep in their own country and use for their own purpose, as they undoubtedly would if they could get credit. Recently I came across a very curious reaction which is taking place as an indirect result of our credit blockade of Russia. The Lord Privy Seal has talked a great deal abort what he is doing for us in the Canadian market, more especially on the subject of the export of British coal to Canada. He has given us some rather hopeful views on that subject, which we Lope to see materialise; but I was somewhat shocked to find, in conversation with a Canadian who imports coal, that at She moment he is not importing British coal, but Russian coal—a very startling fact when you think of the geographical position of the two countries. I have his letter here:
Dear Mr. Strachey, Referring to your conversation regarding Welsh coal. Welsh cobbles cost about 9 dollars 52 cents c.i.f. Montreal; Russian, same size, about 10 dollars, 77 cents; but the degradation of the Welsh coal is 25 per cent. and of the Russian coal 12 per cent., and therefore Russian coal is actually cheaper than the Welsh at Montreal.
That has been brought about by the fact that Russians have had to export coal, or anything else, at all costs, and almost at any price, in order to pay for their
imports, because they have been unable to get reasonable credits from this country. That is a curious reaction which the Lord Privy Seal and the other Ministers responsible for our economic fortunes should not fail to bear in mind. I think the Government have shown an undue timidity in this matter. I cannot help feeling that the overwhelming majority of opinion in this country is very strongly in favour of an active trade policy towards Russia. I think the last speaker was quite wrong in supposing that the majority of even the business community in this country are much concerned to-day about debts of 15 years ago. If there has been anything which has built up this country as a business nation it has been the capacity to cut our losses and not to cry over spilt milk, but go forward with a possibility for new business. Outside this House, in the industrial community and amongst the great manufacturing class of this country, that is the spirit which exists to-day. I ask the Government to take their courage in both hands and to listen to the voice not only of the industrial workers, but also to the voice of the business community seeking above all else for new markets for this country. It is only want of confidence which is preventing a renewal of large-scale business relations between this country and Russia.
I feel that we are in a deadlock at the moment. We have our diplomatic relations, but they are a preliminary. The Government now seem to be afraid to go forward; they are waiting for some further developments and there is a feeling of risk about a more active economic policy for the revision of the export credit scheme, and the devising of a wholly new scheme or something else stops them from doing so. I would ask them to balance one risk against another. Is there no risk in staying as we are? Is there no risk in leaving our industrial areas, in leaving unemployment as it exists to-day without something to offer to the country in the shape of a concrete step such as the proposal we are discussing would undoubtedly give? I am reminded of another occasion on which a Government was pausing and afraid to go forward towards better relations with a foreign country. It was in this House nearly 100 years ago that one of its greatest Members, Charles James Fox, when Mr.
Secretary Dundas had told the House of his refusal to make peace with France addressed the House in these terms: He said that the Government was pausing in what he called a state of probation
Gracious God, Sir, is war a state of probation, is peace a rash system? Is it dangerous for nations to live in amity with each other? Cannot this state of probation be as well undergone without adding to the catalogue of human suffering?
Those words apply to the present circumstances. The catalogue of human suffering is being added to every hour while there is no true relationship between this country and Russia. Behind the cold statistics of frustrated commerce lie the devastated areas of Middlesbrough and the industrial north on the one hand and on the other hand the bitter needs of the Russian masses to-day. These sufferings are hardly less than the sufferings of war—of which Fox was speaking:
Why is this man expiring? Why is that other writhing in agony? What means this implacable fury? The answer must be, You are quite wrong, Sir, you deceive yourself—they are not fighting—do not disturb them—they are merely pausing—this man is not expiring with agony, that man is not dead, he is only pausing. Lord help you, Sir, they are not angry with one another; they have no cause for quarrel; it is nothing more than a political pause.'
To-day we are experiencing a political pause, a pause undertaken only for political reasons in the increase of our trading relations with Russia. There are those on these benches who look to the Government to end that political pause and to bridge over the gulf which separates the industrial workers and producers of this country and the agricultural consumers of Russia, who look confidently for action along those lines and who will very soon demand action along those lines.

Dr. BURGIN: For 10 years past I have been actively concerned in trading relations with Russia, and as the Motion contemplates the conclusion of a commercial agreement between the two countries, perhaps I may be permitted to give to the House one or two instances of genuine difficulties that exist in the extension of that trade which we all desire to see between the two countries. I trust that the intervention of an international lawyer will not strike a discordant note in what is really a commercial discussion. It is necessary for all those well-wishers of extended trading relations with Russia to bear in mind some elemental facts. On
these benches we are whole-heartedly in favour of extending our trade relations with Russia. In the course of the six contested elections which have taken place since 1921 I have placed this matter prominently in my election address, and I hope to show the House that I have tried to put that pledge into practice by actually facilitating trade.
One of the great difficulties in trading with Russia is that there is a vast difference between Russia as a seller and Russia as a buyer. Russia is a great continent covering a large portion of Europe and an immense tract of Asia, and it is endowed with enormous natural resources. As we all know, some 98 per cent. of the platinum of the world is located in the Ural mountains, and the whole of our jewellers' supply of platinum without exception practically comes from Russia. Russia has enormous forests, vast quantities of ply-wood and wood-pulp, and almost undeveloped metal and mineral resources. When Russia is a seller, little difficulty is presented because she delivers the goods and payment becomes a simple matter. When, however, Russia is buying—the whole purpose of the Motion is to increase our own export trade—we then enter the realm of credit. Credit involves documents; documents depend upon law, and the information which I have to tender to this House from my practical experience is that the Russian system of law is not quite what hon. Members of this House would expect.
Prior to 1851 in this country no party to an action was entitled to give evidence, and the astonishing result of that was that the only parties who had a knowledge of the facts were precisely those who were excluded from contributing information to the Court. In Russia to-day, under the law of the Soviet Republic, no party to a dispute is entitled to give evidence, and therefore all our trading community who take part in export trade to Russia must be informed by our Government and must be protected in this respect by clauses in any commercial agreement. They must be told that it is far more important to know the attesting witness than it is to know the party with whom you are doing business. If you make a contract neither you nor the party concerned can give evidence,
but if you have chosen a remarkably good attesting witness to your signature he would be able to give evidence.
In other words, there are provisions under the Russian law which, in any commercial agreement between this country and Russia, necessitate consideration as to whether there should not be inserted clauses which will assist the members of the trading communities in countries where the law is quite different. It is most important that any British firm that proceeds to trade on any large scale with Russia should make it clear that even-stage in the transaction is confirmed by some notarial document. Some of us know that much the same rule applies to some of the Central European States, and you have to be prepared with what is called the contre-partie, a statement of fact in document form which can take the place of the oral evidence of a witness. It is a considerable restriction on liberty if every State may, at some subsequent time, call in question some transaction which has to be proved by a document, and it is necessary that that document should come into existence contemporaneously with the transaction. The seller should also be aware of the necessity of the point which I am putting to the representative of the Government, who, I understand, will intervene later in the Debate.
Will the Government be prepared in considering a commercial agreement to use the result of the experience of trading firms who have been dealing with Russia during the last 10 years? I think we are entitled to say that the Government should include some sort of provision that will prevent the unwary finding themselves possessed of documents which they are unable to prove, and rights of action which they cannot enforce, and they will be dependent solely on diplomatic remedies. I am not speaking at large. I am dealing with facts which are available and which I can, if necessary, communicate to the House. I need scarcely say in an assembly which includes a large number of Members of the commercial community that if your only remedy is a diplomatic remedy, you may write off the transaction as a bad debt.

Mr. WISE: This is a very important point about the Russian law, and I
should like to have it put right. The hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin) is proably aware that nearly all the contracts of purchase made by Russia in this country are made with British firms acting on behalf of Russia and are entirely subject to English law, and therefore the particular point to which the hon. Member has referred does not apply to 99.9 per cent. of the business done, or is likely to be done with Russia.

6.0 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for that statement, because his qualifications to speak on this question are well known to all of us. The point had not escaped me in the least, and I at once admit that, in all cases where contracts are made in England, which are governed by English law and capable of enforcement here against a Russian trading organisation, the difficulty to which I am referring will not arise. That is not what I am saying. I am talking of export, and perhaps it would be wise for me to make a limitation. Let me say at once, taking up the intervention of my hon. Friend, that with regard to transactions with Russian organisations in this country, I have, of course, no quarrel whatever. We know that they are carried through, and that, if there is any difficulty, there is recourse to our courts, and the judgment of our courts will be observed and upheld. I, however, am addressing myself, and with practical data in my possession, to difficulties which have been experienced and are being experienced now, and which are being keenly felt by British exporting firms. I am calling the attention of this House to the fact that you cannot, with your documents of title, your bills of exchange, your agreements and contracts, prove these in a Russian court of law by verbal evidence, but that, in proceedings there, you will be dependent upon documents, and that every step in the chain must be proved by a separate document.
That, however, is not all. Those of us' who have experience of export trade with Russia, as distinguished from export trade with Russian government trading organisations in this country, have met with a further difficulty. The control of the Soviet is such that, in the nature of things, it is difficult to obtain independent legal advice. Who is there in one of
the great Russian trading centres to-day who will accept a brief in litigation against the Soviet Government? Who is there who, with any sort of professional secrecy or independence of view, or impartiality, or effective contribution, will be able, against a Government Department, against one of the great Services, or in a Court of Law, to accept such a responsibility? I am not saying that this is an insurmountable difficulty, but I am asking that this House should take it into account, and should not assume that trading with Russia is merely shelling peas. It is not. There are formidable difficulties, and, if these are to be overcome by relevant provisions in a commercial agreement, so much the better. If so, we shall be all the wiser and the better informed by their having been freely and frankly discussed across the Floor of this House.
There is one other point to which I might, perhaps, call the attention of the House. I do not accept the suggestion that has been made by a previous speaker that the only buyer from a British exporting house will necessarily be the Russian Government. I discount that possibility altogether. I can recall instances where large Russian trading concerns have been the buyers. Whether they obtained authority from the Russian Government to enter into the transaction or not, I know not, but I know that the contract between the British exporting house and the Russian has not been with the Russian Government or the Russian organisation, but with a Russian trading firm. The point that I want to put is that, if you have credit transactions which involve an economic pause before the date of payment arrives, you may find that, between the placing of your contract and the date of the maturity of the bills, something may happen to the financial position of the buyer.
There are ordinary commercial risks. The risk of insolvency is an ordinary commercial risk. But I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that the risk which to-day besets and watches over Russian traders is that they may find that at the last moment, at the moment of maturity of the bills, or when the time arrives for performance of the contract by themselves, some claim may be made by the Russian Government itself in respect of arrears of taxation or some
other State liability. That is a contingency of which the exporting house will have been wholly unaware, which will not have been taken into account, and which, in all probability, will not have been adequately insured against. The risk that the whole of the assets of a Russian trading concern may at any particular moment be capriciously commandeered by the Russian Government in respect of some outstanding claim for taxes or Government liability is a very real risk. I have, as I said at the beginning, been a friend of trade with Russia for the last 10 years. It has been one's desire to see that the 130,000,000 or so of people in Russia should be supplied, as far as possible, with raw materials, the tools of their trade, and manufactured articles, from our own exporting centres; but it would be idle to blind ourselves to the fact that these difficulties exist. It is only sound business common sense if we sit down to face these difficulties, and endeavour as far as possible to overcome them, in the interests of our trading community, in any commercial agreement that may be made between our country and Russia.

Mr. ALLEN: I beg to move, in line 5, to leave out from the word "Republic" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
and, in view of restrictions imposed by the Soviet Government on imports into the territory of the Soviet Union, urges His Majesty's Government to negotiate with the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics with the object of effecting an agreement which will secure an approximate balance of exports and imports between Great Britain and the Soviet Union.
I feel that in substance this Amendment differs very little from the original Motion on the Paper, except that it puts down a practical suggestion instead of merely a pious hope. In submitting the Amendment to the House, it is my desire to approach the question of trade with Russia from a definitely realist point of view. I think I may say that there is a common desire among all parties in this House to increase exports, with the object of relieving the ghastly burden of unemployment. Whether we are going to export harps to Heaven or fireirons to the nether regions does not really matter, so long as we are increasing our exports and thereby giving employment. In Russia we have a potential export
market which at any rate exists and which may be capable of some kind of expansion. Opinions differ as to its value. Personally, with some practical experience of Russia, I scarcely agree with the extraordinarily optimistic views expressed by Members on the opposite side of the House. I think it is a market with some small possibilities. I happen to represent a constituency which is particularly interested in that market, and is also interested in seeing it stabilised and, if possible, developed. The linen industry before the War was partially dependent on the Russian market for its supplies of flax, and the present unreliable conditions in regard to Russian trade are obviously not favourable to stability in the price of that raw material, and are, therefore, unfavourable to production costs in the linen industry. Further, there is in my constituency a very large concern which exports machinery to Russia. It employs about 1,000 men, and, in a constituency where there is very serious unemployment, any scheme which may help a firm in that constituency to take on a few more men is, from my point of view, as the representative of that constituency, well worth considering.
On the other side of the picture we find that the Soviets, while anxious to secure financial assistance for the purpose of reorganising their industries, and. incidentally, of reconditioning a market which might be useful to us, set up difficulties which do not exist when we have to deal with any other country. I should like, for the sake of my argument, to recapitulate those difficulties, although previous speakers have referred to various aspects of them during the afternoon. In the first place, the Soviet Government have repudiated liability for State debts, and have nationalised the property of private companies. Until the Soviets have acknowledged those debts, and have come to a reasonable compromise upon them, it is, to say the least of it, unbusinesslike to consider any kind of large capital loan to them. At the same time, if we recognise that we can make no loans to them until they admit their international obligations, we must not set the international creditors of Russia before our own export trade and before the interests of employment in the constituencies. On this question of debt repudiation, I would venture in a way to
differ from the point of view expressed earlier in the afternoon. The United States of America, a country with the finest credit in the world, has, as a matter of historic fact, repudiated more debts than any country with the exception of Soviet Russia.
The question of a debt settlement with Russia must obviously, as a business proposition, precede any large capital loan. That is plain common sense. If they come to the City for money, and the City has not been paid its old debts, it is hardly likely to grant new loans. In the meantime, however, we are entitled to examine whether we are able to stimulate our export trade with Russia without recourse to subsidised export trade based on risking large capital loans. In this connection, I think we might be well advised to follow the policy pursued by Signor Mussolini in negotiating the Russo-Italian Treaty of 1924, when it was found possible to arrive at a basis for the stimulation of Russo-Italian trade, while at the same time the claims of Italian creditors of Russia were entirely reserved, and Italy received certain definite trade advantages without there being an Italian loan to Russia. Among these advantages were facilities for trade on the Black Sea, which has largely strengthened the Italian mercantile marine, to the disadvantage of British and French lines.
If we examine the figures for trade with Russia during the last seven years, we find that Great Britain is a far more valuable market to Russia than Russia is to Great Britain. The Soviets sell in this country on an average about £20,000,000 worth of goods a year, while, on the other hand, their purchases of British manufactured goods have amounted on the average to less than £5,000,000 a year. [Interruption.] I am coming to specific figures in a minute. In the first three-quarters of 1928, the Soviets sold to us over £13,500,000 worth of goods, and they purchased from us less than £2,250,000 worth. The products that they sell to Great Britain are petroleum, manganese and other minerals, timber, furs and flax. They are, in fact, articles of commerce which we can obtain from regions of the world outside the Soviet Union. They are raw materials of which, generally speaking, in the
present state of economics, there is world over-production, and the British market for these products is vital to the Soviet Union. If that market were closed, the economic life of the Soviet Union would become seriously embarrassed.
I am not suggesting for a moment that it is practical politics to close that market, but, at the same time, I am a business men engaged always in selling in markets where there is over-production. I know that I am at the mercy of my customers, and I know that they know it. I give them, therefore, courtesy and consideration, and, whenever I can, reciprocity. It is an established canon in business, and a very wise one, to buy by preference from those who buy from you. I am not suggesting that we should close our markets to the Soviets, but I would point out that we could close our markets to the Soviets and buy elsewhere without the slightest inconvenience to any section of the community except those few who take caviar and vodka with their supper. We are, in fact, the buyers, and in the business world it is the buyer who sits down with his back to the window, and the seller who has to face the light.
What is the position? The Soviets, through their foreign trade monopoly, control all exports from Russia and all imports into Russia. As a State, they have chosen to assume the position of a trader, and, as a State, they must come down into the market-place like a trader. If they desire to retain the freedom of our market, we must have the freedom of theirs. It is, in fact, in another form, the proposition which the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise), whom I am glad to see in his place to-day, put before the House the other day in relation to Canada. The hon. Member has wide knowledge of Russia and, I think, is one of the ablest economists in the House, and I suspect he is a realist to boot. What is fair for Canada is fair for Russia. To put it in the hon. Member's more euphemistic way, I would suggest that we should say to the Soviets, "Here are we in a position to take £20,000,000 of your goods per annum, and we expect you to take our goods in exchange." A system based on this idea of mutual advantage could be perfectly easily worked through the establishment of some kind of clearing
house system or an Anglo-Soviet bank. I understand that the American Chase Bank already has some such system operating.

Mr. WISE: The hon. Member has made a very interesting proposition. Do I understand that he proposes that we should extend to Russia the same sort of general conditions in regard to our trade as we extend to the Dominions? In the case of most of the Dominions we make large loans, with which they finance their purchases in this country.

Mr. ALLEN: I am in favour of much stronger preferences and loans to the Dominions than hon. Members opposite would support. I was merely suggestsing that the treatment that my Amendment outlines for Russia is at least as fair as the one the hon. Member was outlining for Canada. I understand the American Chase Bank has some such clearing-house system, which facilitates Soviet-American trade. Soviet sales of petroleum, or flax or manganese in this country would be credited to the Soviet account at the clearing-house or bank, and their purchases of British manufactures would be debited against them, the clearing-house being responsible for regulating the balance. By this means the value of British exports to Russia could be brought to an approximate balance with Soviet exports to this country and, instead of British exports to Russia being £4,000,000 a year, they should rise to £20,000,000 if the Soviets maintain their present level of imports. In fact I would go so far as to suggest—though I do not for a moment wish to associate with me those whose names appear on the Paper with mine—that should this system work satisfactorily for a year or two, the Government might consider the financing of additional exports to the Soviet to the extent of, say, 25 per cent. of the annual credit established by the Soviets in this country. Thus, if for the year 1931 the Soviets, by the sale of goods here, were to establish credits to the extent of £28,000,000, that is 40 per cent. in excess of their present imports, the Government might consider guaranteeing British firms a further £7,000,000, that is 25 per cent. of their credits created, thus securing total exports to Russia of £35,000,000, which would be a figure
approximating to the ambitious annual purchases in Britain forecasted under the Soviet five years plan.
I would, however, say this in regard to Russia in general, that the establishment of any really satisfactory trade must depend on their capacity to consume and on their capacity to create exports. The present Russia is very different from the pre-War Russia. When we compare our present trade with our pre-War trade with Russia, we must remember, above all, the secession States. Our trade now with Poland, the Baltic States, Finland, and part of our Rumanian trade, represents trade with regions that formerly constituted part, and an important part, of the Russian market. The Russians have furthermore lost the most highly industrialised parts of the old Russian Empire, that is the regions around Warsaw, Lodz and Lvoff, a great textile centre, and all the Baltic ports except Leningrad. Furthermore, the important luxury market, which absorbed a fair proportion of high-class textile and leather goods, has completely disappeared. But even in the pre-War years our trade with Russia was not great. Russia is now a much reduced market. She has lost a European population of 30,000,000 to 40,000,000, although that market still exists for us in the form of the new secession States. Russia's important industrial regions are now really reduced to Leningrad and Moscow, the Kharkoff area, and the petroleum and mining towns in the Caucasus, the Urals and the the Donetz basin. There is no luxury market. Though that may be a matter of satisfaction to hon. Members opposite, I am afraid the fact that the luxury market has ceased to exist seriously affects our export trade. There is really no market under the present Soviet fiscal system for the cheap manufactured goods of the type consumed by the people. There is an immediate market for industrial plant and agricultural machinery, as hon. Members opposite have observed, and it is really only by the reorganisation of mining and agriculture that the Soviete can develop exports which will pay them. Their present policy is like that of so many countries which have taken to tariffs before they have a sufficiently developed industrial system.
There are certain real possibilities, I believe, in the Russian market, though
they are limited ones, and really the position now, from the point of view of exports, is about the same, probably no worse than that of the South American Republics 100 years ago after the war of liberation. We have to remember, too, that in addition to the Russian market there is access only through Russia to the great and almost undeveloped markets of Central Asia and to the remote provinces of Western China, which are fairly thickly populated. These are markets which are now virtually the monopoly of the Soviets, but they are inefficient and under-developed and they cannot supply those markets and cannot stimulate production. I feel that there is a great and, eventually, a real potential market for British goods among the masses of the common people from the Pripet marshes right up to the great wall of China. All these people are poor, miserably poor, but they are all potential consumers of the cheap goods which we can produce in abundance—the goods which the Soviets, with all their ambitious schemes of industrialisation, will not be able to supply in the sort of quantities which may be consumed in the next 50 years, if they last that long. After all, these people, poor as they are, have as much purchasing capacity per head as the inhabitants of parts of Africa and China. I should like to give an illustration of one of these under-developed Eastern markets which, I think, is very similar to the Russian market, that is, Turkey. The conditions in Turkey are similar to those in Russia. There is an agricultural population with a very low standard of living. The country is extremely impoverished and, though there are virtually no manufacturing industries, there are very high tariffs. Yet the people are waking up. They are quite different from what they were before the War. They are beginning to move about. They are actually wanting to be cleaner. They are beginning to shave. There is a big movement on for shaving. It is an extraordinary thing that in the remoter districts of Anatolia I can buy Eno's Fruit Salts in Sivas, there is a traveller for Crosfield's soap in Trebizond, and it is a pleasure to see in almost every village inn British-made gramophone records of Turkish songs.
If the Anatolian Turks are coming on, I feel that there must, even with the bad conditions there are in Russia, be a certain limited market which we could and should supply. In Turkey, as in Russia, you have a demand, you have a consumer capacity, and it is the organisation of credit that is needed, both to supply these people, to finance exports to them, and at the same time to stimulate their productive power and thus to increase their potential, growing consumer capacity. There are particular and special difficulties with regard to Russia. I confine myself to the export problem and have not referred to the very real atrocities that exist and which hon. Members opposite do not seem to believe in, possibly because they have not actually been there. Communist propaganda is a tedious and worrying problem, but it is not relevant to the question of exports. After all, we have had propaganda of various kinds in this country for the last 300 years and they have not been very successful—even the prohibition propaganda. I should think-there is a good deal more money spent on prohibition than on Communism. The best answer to Communist propaganda is increased employment.
Again, the debts question is an international question requiring international agreement, and it stands apart, like the German debts question, and we can approach the question of exports to Russia in the same spirit as has already been done by the Swedish and Italian Governments in reserving the debts question and dealing only with export problems. In the meantime we have the whip hand over Russia. We control a market which is vital to them. We can dictate our terms, and we can dictate in terms of work for the unemployed. I should like to see the Government consider establishing this clearing-house system, by which the Soviets, through their annual sales in Great Britain, could establish credits to be reserved for the purchase of British manufactures to an equivalent amount. When this clearing house system was working, I think the Government might consider going further. I think they should, if they did give any further assistance, combine with financial assistance an arrangement whereby the Soviets should make a drastic reduction in the tariffs on
British goods, a preferential reduction, in consideration of having received some kind of assistance. This reduction should be made in all cases where the Soviet could not supply their own market.
I would again emphasise that in this question of trading with Russia, it is we and not the Soviets who hold all the trump cards—every one of them. We can cut off the most vital markets for their goods if we choose. We have the money that they need and we have the goods that they need. I have had some experience of the Bolsheviks—I have actually sat in the Cheka and wondered rather what was going to be the next step—and I know that while they exploit the slightest sign of weakness, they have a certain amount of respect for honest realism. Whatever else they have been, they have always been realists. To sum up, if I may use poker parlance, I should say that we have a straight flush, and we must not allow ourselves to be bluffed by a pair of red knaves.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would like it to be understood at the outset that I second the Amendment as it stands on the Paper, and that I do not associate myself with some of his remarks, especially those remarks which were greeted by applause from hon. Members opposite. I am very strongly of opinion that Communist propaganda as practised by the Third International is a definite deterrent to trade. After all, this question of trade with Russia is merely a matter of credit, as I have understood from the many speeches which I have heard from the opposite side of the House. Russia, of course, is an enormous potential market. The only thing wanting is that they have not the money to pay for the goods which the people of the country would like to have. That fact, and the intervention of the Soviet organisation, have taken all foreign trade from them. I gather from some of the speeches that hon. Members opposite want their own Government to extend Government credits to further British exports to Russia. I shall be very much interested to hear the reply of the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench and to learn what action the Government are going to take. Politically, I can imagine
no object that would rouse greater indignation amongst the people of this country than the idea that we should give credit to the Russian Government as it stands at the present time. There was nothing which produced greater indignation in the General Election of 1924 than that one point.
Why does the City not give credit? If the credit is good the City will give credit. If the credit is not good enough for the City, why should the taxpayer's money be pledged? The hon. Lady who moved the original Motion said, I think, that Russian credit is the best credit in the world. Is there any case of the trade unions of this country, which, I believe, look for good investments, putting their money into Russian loans? The hon. Lady rather skated lightly over the facts about the English creditors of Russia. She must know from the green pamphlet which she received that 28 per cent. of the bondholder creditors are people who have under £100 invested, and that 70 per cent. of the creditors are for amounts under £500. These are not big people. They include governesses, gardeners and even dock labourers. They are not the detestable capitalists about whom we hear a lot. I think that these people ought to be looked after and their interests, too. Personally—and here I disagree with my hon. Friend whose Motion I generally support—I think that the British Government have no right to give credit to Russia until the Soviet Government have come to some satisfactory arrangement with their British creditors.
There are many countries, if you could give them enormous credits, which would buy largely from Great Britain. What about China? The wants of China are, no doubt, very great. If you could arrange credit you could give them all they want. The people in Central Africa no doubt want credit. You could arrange large schemes of exports to many Republics in South America if you could give credit. I want to know more about this credit. There was a delegation who went out to Russia six or seven months ago, namely, the Anglo-Russian Committee. They left this country with a great flourish of trumpets. They came back rather quieter and in a more subdued mood. I have a copy of their report. They sent one to me. I read in that report
that M. Pictikov, when he received them in Moscow, said that he had £150,000,000 to give in orders to this country. That was something to make their mouths water. I have read since that the present Ambassador, M. Sokolnikov, in an interview or article in the Press in Moscow, said:
For every £100 we get of industrial machinery from abroad we want at the same time £375 of free money credit. That free money credit is required to build houses for the workers, factories to put machinery in and to buy raw material.
If you calculate what it will cost to sell your £150,000,000 worth of stuff to Russia, you will find that it comes to £712,500,000, that is if you calculate the £375 of free money credit for every £100 worth of British products sent out. I do not know whether M. Sokolnikov, now that he has become Ambassador to this country, agrees with what he said then. There are several things in Russia, which limit the purchasing powers of Russia. I spent nine or ten years in Russia. I was for two months under the Bolshevist regime, and I knew a good deal of Russia before, having travelled all over it. It is really the iron hand of the Communist that has changed the whole thing. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the iron hand of the Tsar?"] I am talking about Russia as it is now. Take the year when trade with Russia reached its peak since the Revolution, the year 1925. In that year, the exports of British manufactures to Russia amounted to £6,250,000. Our total exports that year were £619,000,000. Therefore, we sent about 1 per cent., and that was the peak year since the Revolution in Russia. There are certain things in the organisation which have really decreased the purchasing power. I would like to quote from great industrialists, or the officials in Russia. I do not want to quote the opinions of any hidebound Tory who went there. Take Dyerzhinsky before his mysterious death three years ago. Here is what he said concerning the system or organisation in Russia:
We are smothered in bureaucracy; our system and practice of administration are in themselves sufficient to paralyse efficiency and restrict output. For instance, one simple question by the chairman of the rubber trust concerning prices had to pass through 32 various stages in the same office.
That is what Dzerzhinsky said a few hours before he died. There are the
supreme heads of the economic Soviet. I would like to quote from Rudzutak. Last year or the year before he quoted the case of the Odessa Engineering Works which made thousands of ploughs, which when tested in the fields fell to pieces. He quoted the case of the Sugiew glass factory. This factory was constructed at a place to which they had to bring the sand from a distance of 100 miles and the wood from a distance of 300 miles. It struggled on for six months and made a debt of half-a-million roubles and was then closed down. Then you had M. Bykov who mentioned a few days ago the case of a cotton factory. He said that the factory was built at a place four or five versts, about three miles, from the railway, and 17 versts, about 13 miles, from any water. There were no houses for the workers. He ended by saying:
It looks as if the very worst and most inconvenient spot in the whole Soviet Union. has been selected.
Are these the sort of people to whom it is suggested we should lend British capital which is so much required in this country. Of course, they have no money. The average holding in the saving banks in Russia to-day is one rouble per head of the population. How can a population like that afford the luxury of foreign imports? Russia, which before the War was one of the greatest grain exporting countries in the world, in 1928 imported from 150,000 to 200,000 tons of grain from abroad, and there have been several famines since the Revolution. I would implore hon. Members opposite to study the question of exports to other countries beside Russia. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) explained very fully, with all his knowledge and experience of the world, they are really pursuing a phantom. We cannot increase our exports to Russia to any sufficient extent and bring about any appreciable amelioration of unemployment in this country.
There are other reasons why we should give less consideration to the Russian market than to other parts. No hon. Member can shut his eyes to the persistent massacres which go on in that country. I would like to know whether the Soviet Embassy will deny the confiscation of the holdings of the so-called rich peasants, the peasants with two or
three horses or two or three cows who are turned out on the roadside and have their goods confiscated. Is that the Government we want to support by British credit? Of course, we want to help to reduce our unemployment. Let us go to other markets which give greater promise, where government is not the absolute tyranny it is in Russia. As was said by Mussolini in reply to their attack on Fascismo:
It is a system that supports dictatorship on a pile of corpses.

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am placed in a peculiarly difficult position in answering the arguments which have been raised on this subject by hon. Members opposite, by reason of the extraordinary contrast which has been presented in the arguments in favour of the definite Amendment used by the hon. Member who proposed it, and by the hon. and gallant Member who seconded it. I felt inclined almost to have accepted the Amendment as it was moved by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Allen). There was so much in his speech that was helpful and hopeful, in entire contrast to the speech of the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Hilton Young). The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks compared the opportunities of Russian trade to such opportunities that might ultimately be received from countries like Holland and New Zealand. The hon. Member for West Belfast had a vision of the great lands of Russia and the opportunities that lay there, even if at the present time they are not being developed. When I turn to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for High Wycombe (Sir A. Knox), I notice that he dissociated himself from having anything to do with the speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast, except that he agreed with the terms of the Amendment.
The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks made a statement at which I was very much surprised. I was expecting that the right hon. Gentleman would lay great stress upon the importance of the settlement of financial affairs. It shows how utterly hopeless is the position of the Conservative party on this matter, if what the right hon. Gentleman stated is also the principle that is held by that party,
namely, that no trading relationship, no credit facilities should be guaranteed, even, as I understood, after the settlement of finances, unless the Soviet Government are prepared to say that they are willing to throw over the whole principle on which trade in Russia is carried on. They must be willing to alter their system of trading in order to do business with this country. That is an interference with the Government of any great country which it is quite impossible to justify. It would be exceedingly difficult to carry on the conferences and the trade between any nation if there was to be interference on the lines suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
I did not follow fully the whole of the legal points raised by the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin), but no doubt in the negotiations that take place those concerned will look into his proposals. I think that he accentuated the dangers of the position. To a large extent the export business of this country is done with firms that are virtually representative of the Soviet Government, and to a great extent the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Member might almost have been overlooked. The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks gave a description of the trading position in Russia. He asked me whether my Department, as being responsible for the export credits, had asked from those who were going to receive our guarantees whether they would give us an account of the condition of things in Russia. I do not know that we have done that; at any rate, I have not seen a report to show that we have done it, but we have done what is often done by very go-ahead business firms, we have sent out a man of our own to investigate the position on the spot. I should have thought that the action which His Majesty's Government have taken in renewing relationship with Russia and so having our own representative in Russia, would commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman.
When I heard the right hon. Gentleman's account and I compare it with some information which we have received, I confess that I think he painted the picture too dark. I sometimes wonder whether we in this country sufficiently appreciate the important events that are going on in Russia; the great experiment which the Russian Government is undertaking at the present time and the importance of
the results of that experiment to the nations of Europe, if it should prove to be a success or if it should end in failure. The Russian Government are engaged in what is known as a five-years' plan, a great plan of industrial and agricultural reorganisation. For this purpose they are making extraordinary efforts to export anything that they can possibly spare in order to raise credits outside their country. My hon. Friend who moved the Motion said that it was quite easy for Russia to get credits, but one of my hon. Friends on this side, who spoke later, was more accurate when he pointed out that it is not quite so easy for Russia to get credits as the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) suggested. That is one of their great difficulties to-day.
If we are asked how far their internal conditions are likely to justify the efforts that they are making, we get a varied picture of success and failure. The pessimists who constantly wrote in the newspapers used to tell us that the Russian oil production was never likely to be greatly increased. I understand that to-day that oil production is higher than it was in the pre-revolution days. We know that recently they have greatly increased their export of timber. On the other hand, they are faced with difficulties due to shortage of coal, which is partly explained by the inefficient equipment in their mines. They had a good harvest last year. At the moment they are engaged in their new scheme for agricultural production, which has aroused considerable opposition among the peasants. The success of the experiment will probably depend to some extent upon how far the Russian Government can succeed in pacifying that element in Russia. It indicates the difficulties with which the Russian Government are faced when we see reports which appear in the Russian newspapers saying that the tractors badly needed for this agricultural experiment are in many cases in an unsatisfactory state of repair.
We have to link up any review of Russian trade with the fact that they are very anxious to secure credits overseas for the purpose of their great experiment, particularly in order to buy the necessary machinery that they require. A further problem before them is the home problem. Will they, having control of the whole of the property of the country, and a
national system of wages, be able to hold out through the difficult years until the scheme begins to fructify and gives them the return that they are hoping for? That is their problem, and it is most important that we in this House, whatever our political views, should understand and appreciate that a Motion of the kind now before us is of very considerable importance in the relationships between the two nations. The financial problem and our view of the financial relations between the two countries will be the key, to a large extent, to the solution of the difficulties.
On account of the desire of the Soviet Government to be able to purchase machinery we find that the imports into Russia, compared with 1928–29, show a reduction from £94,000,000 to £86,000,000. On the other hand, their exports rose from £77,000,000 to £90,000,000. By this means they altered an adverse balance against them of £17,000,000 to a balance in their favour of £4,000,000. To a great manufacturing country like the United Kingdom it is of special interest to note that of the £90,000,000 worth of goods that were exported into Russia from different countries about 50 per cent. were for machinery or plant connected with it, while 40 per cent. was largely raw material. It therefore means that we, with our special interests, have the field before us, along with the other nations of the world, of 50 per cent. of those exports into Russia of machinery and plant, representing £45,000,000 worth of goods, which Russia is needing and which she will need from the industrial world which makes machinery.
It is quite likely that in the five years scheme the present year 1930 will be the critical year. At the end of this year we shall be better able to see how the scheme is going to work out. I think we shall find that this year the Russian Government will have to be prepared to spend £45,000,000 for goods of the class that we can specially supply. Our two chief competitors in this class of goods are Germany and the United States of America, and it is interesting to note that the German exports to Russia for the year ending 30th September, 1928, amounted to £25,000,000 while for 1929 the figure was £19,000,000. The exports from the United States were for 1928, £19,000,000 and for 1929, £15,000,000.
7.0 p.m.
Against those figures, the figures for 1929 of Germany of £19,000,000 and of the United States of £15,000,000, our figure for goods exported to Russia is only about £6,000,000. In connection with that there is one point made by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young). When he was attempting to argue that the openings for trade with Russia were extremely small and gave figures for the pre-War position and then compared it with the figures to-day, it seemed to me that he did not take any note of the effect of the altered value which I think ought to be taken into account in considering the question he was placing before the House.
The question which has been addressed to me by my hon. Friend is the question as to what the Government have done to try to help forward and encourage trade with Russia. It is well known that the negotiations with the Russian Government were opened shortly after the present Government came into office and there is seen already, in some of the figures, a small beginning as the result of a better feeling existing between the two peoples. If you take the six months ending November, 1929, the second period of which was largely covered—though not entirely—by the activities of the present Government, you find that the exports and re-exports rose from £2,300,000 to £3,400,000. If we take the orders that have been placed in the United Kingdom during October, November, and December of these years we find that in 1928, when the last Government were in office, under the policy which they were following with Russia, the orders amounted to £1,700,000. In the three months when the Labour Government were in office those orders amounted to £4,700,000. That is briefly the financial position between the two countries. Before I take up the larger question of finance I would like to refer to the second part of the Motion which was moved by my hon. Friend, a Motion which has my entire support. She dwelt there upon the importance of having some commercial agreement entered into between the Russian Government and the Government of this country. I may perhaps be allowed to read to the House a statement of what has actually been
done by the Foreign Office in regard to this matter:
One of the primary objects sought by His Majesty's Government in resuming diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government was an expansion of trade between this country and the Soviet Union. His Majesty's Government are, therefore, entirely in sympathy with the Motion before the House and for their part are moving as quickly as circumstances permit towards the conclusion of an instrument which will regularise the relations between the two countries. The negotiations adumbrated in the Protocol of 3rd October have been proceeded with ever since the exchange of Ambassadors and have now readied a stage when detailed discussions of the necessary documents can be assured.
In those circumstances, I can assure my hon. Friend, as regards the second part of the Motion, that the Government is doing all that is possible at the present time to enter into some commercial agreement on the lines which she has suggested.
Turning now to the first part of the Motion and reverting to the financial question, the Government announced some time ago that it would be quite impossible for them to consider guaranteeing a Russian loan on the same lines, or on any other lines as a matter of fact, as had been suggested when the Labour Government were last in office. That means practically that, if Russia desires to raise credits in this country, a settlement with the City on the various debt questions and other questions that still exist and are awaiting settlement is a fundamental necessity if any large amount of money is going to be obtained from this country. It is quite obvious when we look at the condition of the London money market to-day, faced as it has been with losses in the recent financial crisis, faced as it has been with the effects of the great slump in the United States, that for all countries at the present time there are special difficulties in raising loans upon the London money market. Therefore His Majesty's Government with their financial commitments have to bear these matters in mind and it is impossible to expect this Government to be responsible to any great extent for financing any other Government under the present conditions.
The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks in dealing with this question of a loan brought up once again the argument that
as a matter of fact the Government by their export credits scheme are giving a loan to Russia. I venture entirely to dissent from that argument. Certainly from a financial standpoint there are very great differences between the export credit scheme now in force and the granting of a loan of money. We know perfectly well, in the first place, that the guarantee of the repayment of a certain proportion of bills that are going to be drawn in connection with the transaction would apply to some one definite transaction dealing with certain definite goods. On the other hand, if any country raises a loan on the London money market, it is at liberty to buy any goods it likes and—what is even more important and of very great importance when we are considering the position of the London money market—there is no guarantee that that money need be spent in this country. It may be spent by the Russian Government either in Germany or in the United States, resulting in all probability in the withdrawal of money from this country with the result that that would have on our exchanges. Therefore to compare a guarantee, which is more in the nature of insurance, with a loan that is raised on the London money market seems to me to be playing with terms, and to anyone so well acquainted with finance as the right hon. Gentleman it would, I should have thought, been quite impossible to have suggested that they were in any way the same.
I should like to say a few words in regard to the export credits guarantee scheme as during the last few weeks a number of questions have been addressed to me on this subject It is on this scheme that some of my hon. Friends have pinned their hopes of getting more credits for Russia. I might remind the House that it was made available to Russia on the 1st August last year. From 4th September, when the scheme really began to work, to the present time contracts have been entered into with Russian interests to the amount of £603,000. Some of my hon. Friends may naturally say that is a small figure. What I want to point out to them is that the export credits scheme is really only in the first years of its existence, that it is to a large extent a new movement in the world of credit and that, if you take the whole transactions in the last year, they only amounted to
a sum of about six or seven million pounds, spread over the whole of the world.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: Is that the Government's share of the risk or the total business?

Mr. GILLETT: I might explain when I mentioned "contract" that that means the actual business which was done and which is important from the point of view of labour. The contract is the amount of business done. Then the Government guarantee the repayment of a certain percentage varying from 50 to 75 per cent. so that the actual liability the Government has entered into will be a percentage of the figure I have given to the House. In regard to the business that has been done, there is undoubted evidence that a large proportion of it is new business and probably could not have been undertaken without the assistance of the Department. The point, however, which my hon. Friends are really pressing for is that of longer terms. I was asked the other day in a supplementary question whether the treatment of the Russian Government was different to that of other countries and I stated that it was not. As a matter of fact, when the Advisory Committee are considering an application, in the ordinary way among the things considered is the country to which the goods are going. With some countries we have decided that no more business shall be done, at any rate for a period; with other countries it has been decided that it is undesirable to grant anything but short credits; to others we give short or long credits. The long term credit is limited in any case by the Act of Parliament to a period of five years.
The working of the scheme has had the result that most of the business done so far—I might almost say to the extent of at least 80 per cent.—is done on the short term credit. Therefore what has been done with the Soviet Government is really similar to a great extent to what the scheme does with other countries. As a matter of fact, oven if a company gets a guarantee of the export credits department they have to raise the money, and if the period is for a long one of three or four, or five years, there is no doubt that a certain amount of difficulty arises in procuring the necessary financial assistance. This problem of
long term credits is by no means confined to the case of Russia. During the few months I have occupied my present position I have been impressed by the information which has come to me of the difficulty of manufacturers who want to export goods all over the world in arranging for the payment being spread over four, five, six or seven years. The Lord Privy Seal in the many investigations he has carried out, has found exactly the same difficulty. In Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and America provision no doubt is made for their manufacturers to a far greater extent than by the financial interests in this country. Hon. Members opposite who have experience on these matters will, I am sure, agree with me. Therefore, we are up against a problem which is not connected solely with Russia, but we are up against the problem which needs to be faced, and, as a matter of fact, is being considered by the Lord Privy Seal at the present moment.

Mr. HACKING: This is really an important matter. The hon. Member spoke about short-term credits to Russia, but he did not say what the maximum short-term credit was. Is it a maximum of one year?

Mr. GILLETT: It has always been the custom, even when the right hon. Member occupied my present office, to be very cautious how far any information of that kind was given out publicly on the Floor of the House.

Mr. HACKING: I am not asking for the amount in regard to any particular deal, but as to the length of the transaction.

Mr. GILLETT: The point he is asking me is whether any definite time has been fixed by the Advisory Committee as to short-term credits. I think it is rather a dangerous question to put, and if I give a definite reply there may be occasions when I shall be asked a similar question in regard to other countries.

Mr. HACKING: The hon. Member has said that five years has been given in the case of one country. I only want to know the maximum that has been given to Russia.

Mr. GILLETT: I said that five years was the maximum laid down under the Act. I hope the right hon. Member will not press this question.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: The House has a right to know.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: I gather from what my hon. Friend has said that it is the custom and practice in the Department to consider long-term contracts for any countries over a period of 12 months. Am I to understand that it is the intention of the Department to review the present position with a view of altering the present practice and scheme?

Mr. GILLETT: I cannot say that there is any intention of altering the present practice or scheme. All I can say is that they are considering what is manifestly a deficiency in our present financial organisation, but what the decision will be I cannot say at the moment. The action of the Labour Government in opening negotiations with Russia has already resulted in an increased export trade, and what is equally, if not even more important, in better relations between the two nations which will lead to better results in the future. The amount of Russian business that has been done under the export guarantee scheme, although the figure is small, is at any rate, as far as the scheme itself is concerned, one of the largest; amounts of business done with any country in the world. We hope shortly to get a commercial agreement between the two countries, and it may be that as a result of these negotiations a settlement in regard to the vexed question of the debt may be brought about. We see from the financial transactions which have been carried out by people interested in the City, a readiness in that quarter to discuss the whole question. Whatever views may be held about the Government of Russia, or on some of the matters mentioned in the Debate to-night, the only wise policy for us to pursue is to endeavour to get into the closest business relationship with the Russian Government. As far as we are concerned, we shall certainly do everything to improve that relationship, and thus increase the export trade with the ultimate object of securing work for the unemployed, which I can assure the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) we are all most sincerely anxious to provide.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Owing to the growing habit of hon. Members making rather longer speeches than usual on private Members' day there is very little time for a large number of hon. Members who wish to take part in this discussion. The Secretary for Overseas Trade has told us that we are sending about £4,500,000 of goods every year to Russia and taking from Russia £21,500,000. Therefore, Russia is establishing a large credit in this country. He also told us that America and Germany are sending a far larger amount of manufactured goods to Russia than they take from Russia. Therefore, with the credits which Russia is establishing in this country she is buying goods from America and Germany. That is the point of this Amendment, that some kind of clearing house should be set up in this country to enable the credits which Russia has established in this country being utilised for the purpose of sending goods from this country to Russia. That should be perfectly possible. We have to realise that in trading with Russia we are trading in a totally different fashion to any other country in the world. Russia directs the whole of her import and export trade under a Government department. We are free to send our exports by private enterprise to every country in the world. The Russians, by the Government monopoly, for political reasons, can direct their exports to this country or to any other country. What they send us is chiefly oil and wood, and they do not have a monopoly. They are dependent on our open markets, and we could bargain with them and say that if we take so much of their oil and wood they must take so much of the agricultural machinery or motors which we manufacture.
It is on these lines that we should try and come to some form of agreement with Russia. That can be done at once. It does not need a settlement of the debt question. They have established a definite credit in this country, and we ought to make use of that credit for the

purpose of financing our depressed industries and sending them machinery, which they need so much, and which today they are buying in Germany and the United States. The problem as to how we can expand our Anglo-Soviet trade is prejudiced by the question of propaganda. The surplus money which Russia is getting to-day from this country is being spent on propaganda against our interests throughout the world. For my own part I do not wish to have any particular dealings with the present Russian Government. I allow hon. Members opposite to have their share of any transactions, but in the case of a government that can act as the Soviet Government have acted in the past, establishing the worst persecution of Christians in the history of the world, I should like to wash my hands of them.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: The churches are better attended in Moscow than in London.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: In a certain Burmese village where they are all Buddhists and it is a sin to take life, they throw all the burdens of their sins on the fishermen and sportsmen. It is an old Jesuitical doctrine that it pays you to do evil in order that eventual good may result. Possibly, this may eventuate in helping unemployment, but for my own part I wish to have nothing to do with the transaction. By using the credits that Russia has established in this country for the purposes of trade we have a lever by which we can compel Russia to make use of those credits for the purposes of our trade.

Miss WILKINSON rose in her place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 139.

Division No. 143.]
AYES.
7.30 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Angell, Norman
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Arnott, John
Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Ayles, Walter
Benson, G.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Benthant, Dr. Ethel


Alpass, J. H.
Barnes, Alfred John
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)


Ammon, Charles George
Batey, Joseph
Birkett, W. Norman


Bowen, J. W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Romeril, H. G.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Johnston, Thomas
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Bromley, J.
Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint)
Rowson, Guy


Brooke, W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Brothers, M.
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Sandham, E.


Burgess, F. G.
Kennedy, Thomas
Sawyer, G. F.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Kirkwood, D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Knight, Holford
Scurr, John


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sexton, James


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lathan, G.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Charleton, H. C.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Chater, Daniel
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Sherwood, G. H.


Clarke, J. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Shield, George William


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Leach, W.
Shinwell, E.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Compton, Joseph
Lees, J.
Simmons, C. J.


Cove, William G.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Daggar, George
Longbottom, A. W.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Dalton, Hugh
Longden, F.
Sinkinson, George


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sitch, Charles H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, Thomas
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lunn, William
Smith, Ben (Bermondsny, Rotherhithe)


Devlin, Joseph.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Dickson, T.
McElwee, A.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
McKinlay, A.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Dukes, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Ede, James Chuter
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Snell, Harry


Edge, Sir William
McShane, John James
Sorensen, R.


Edmunds, J. E.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mansfield, W.
Stephen, Campbell


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
March, S.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Elmley, Viscount
Marcus, M.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Foot, Isaac
Markham, S. F.
Strauss, G. R


Freeman, Peter
Marley, J.
Suillvan, J.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Mathers, George
Sutton, J. E.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Matters, L. W.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maxton, James
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Gibbins, Joseph
Melville, Sir James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs Mossley)
Messer, Fred
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gill, T. H.
Middleton, G.
Thurtle, Ernest


Gillett, George M.
Mills, J. E.
Tinker, John Joseph


Gossling, A. G.
Milner, J.
Tout, W. J.


Gould, F.
Morgan Dr. H. B.
Townend, A. E.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morley, Ralph
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Turner, B.


Gray, Milner
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Vaughan, D. J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Mort, D. L.
Walker, J.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Wallace, H. W.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Muff, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murnin, Hugh
Wellock, Wilfred


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
West, F. R.


Harbison, T. J.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Westwood. Joseph


Hardie, George D.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Palin, John Henry
White, H. G.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Paling, Wilfrid
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Blrm., Ladywood)


Haycock, A. W.
Palmer, E. T.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, David (Swansea East)


Hayes, John Henry
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pole, Major D. G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C. H. (Shefield, Attercliffe)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Price, M. P.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Pybus, Percy John
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Herriotts, J.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Winterton, G. E,(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Holline, A.
Richards, R.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Hopkin, Daniel
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)



Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Isaacs, George
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Miss Wilkinson and Mr. Horrabin.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Aske, Sir Robert
Balniel, Lord


Albery, Irving James
Atholl, Duchess of
Beaumont, M. W.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Atkinson, C.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Berry, Sir George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)




Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gower, Sir Robert
O'Neill, Sir H.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Penny, Sir George


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bracken, B.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Briscoe, Richard George
Gulnness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hanbury, C.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Butler, R. A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Carver, Major W. H.
Haslam, Henry C.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Savery, S. S.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Skelton, A. N.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smithers, Waldron


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Iveagh, Countess of
Somerset, Thomas


Colville, Major D. J.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Crichton, Stuart, Lord C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Thomson, Sir F.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Tinne, J. A.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Train, J.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lymington, Viscount
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macquisten, F. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wells, Sydney R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


England, Colonel A.
Mond, Hon. Henry
Womersley, W. J.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)



Ferguson, Sir John
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fielden, E. B.
Muirhead, A. J.
Mr. W. E. D. Allen and Captain


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sir William Brass.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert



Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Resolved,
That, in view of the grave state of unemployment in this country, particularly in the heavy industries, and the imperative need for new markets for British goods, this House is of the opinion that the Government should energetically explore every avenue which will lead to increased trade with the Russian Soviet Republic, and that, in order to put this trade on a stable basis, a commercial agreement should be arranged between the two countries at an early date.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL (Certified Bill) (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Ordered,
That Clauses 5, 6, 7 to 17, inclusive, Part IV, and Clauses 46 to 52, inclusive, and 54, and in so far as they apply for the purposes of the said Clauses 5, 6, 7 to 17, inclusive, Part IV, and Clauses 46 to 52, inclusive, and 54, the Preamble, Part I,
and Clauses 69, 72, and 79 of that Bill, be committed to the Committee of Selection."—[Mr. Parkinson.] (Liverpool Corporation (No. 1) Bill.)

Remaining Provisions committed (Liverpool Corporation (No. 2) Bill),

Viscount LYMINGTON: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Liverpool Corporation (No. 2) "ill to leave out Clauses 63 and 68.
It is not in any spirit of captiousness that we are opposing these two Clauses, but because we feel that there must be an objection on broad principles to Clauses of this nature creeping, very often unnoticed, into the Bills of local authorities. It is a case where the vigilance of Parliament is needed to the utmost. Let us compare the innocence of the remaining Clauses of the Bill with the two Clauses which we wish to see omitted. The other Clauses provide for such things as these: that vehicles may not be left standing in the street, that unauthorised riders of vehicles may be fined. Personally I have considerable sympathy with unauthorised boys who ride vehicles. Clauses such as these are perfectly innocent and are such as a
local authority has a right to demand for itself. When we come to Clause 63 we find that the Corporation wishes to make, at its own instance, provisions for the regulation of labour of boys under under 18 who do certain jobs, such as errand running. I have every sympathy with provisions drawn up on a national basis in this House for regulating the various conditions under which boys under 18 may work, but when a single corporation seeks to establish provisions of its own the vigilance of Parliament is demanded.
We cannot have a local authority dealing with matters of this sort and remain entirely ignorant of where we may land in the end. The present proposal relates to boys under 18. Next time it may very well be boys over 18. It may be that a local authority in future would prescribe conditions of labour which would make it extremely difficult to regulate those conditions throughout the country. Nobody, of course, supposes that the Corporation of Liverpool would use this authority to the detriment of its people, but it is perfectly possible for such authority to be abused at any time in the future, and it is equally possible that there would be serious detriment to trade if proposals like this were allowed to creep into an Act. Liverpool is a clearing port for an immense industrial area behind it, and the possible reactions of these particular Clauses are worth watching.
As regards Clause 68, nobody is more anxious than I am to see sanitary regulations made about the sale of food, but regulations so far-reaching as those proposed in the Clause ought not to be a matter for a municipal authority, but ought to be a matter to be dealt with nationally and with the authority of Parliament. Let us consider what is involved. It may be that there is no actual expense to the big firms in having to sell bread in airtight covers, but a large number of reputable small firms in the bakery business may be affected by having to employ either hand-work or expensive machinery for this purpose, thus materially increasing their costs of production. Hon. Members opposite as well as on this side, know the cry which we all fear at Election time:
Your food will cost you more.
I am not going to suggest that this regulation is necessarily going to affect the price of bread, but it is one of those matters in which Parliament ought to guard against a local authority introducing unnoticed, rules and by-laws which may upset conditions of sale and affect whole populations. We have heard lately, and I believe rightly, of the dangers of bureaucratic control by State Departments which override Parliament or at least limit the power of Parliament to express its own will and act as trustee of the welfare of the people. My experience of local authorities leads me to the conclusion that bureaucratic control by the officials who are responsible for the general machinery of local authorities, must be just as carefully guarded against as bureaucratic control of the kind which may creep in as regards national affairs, against the wishes of this House. For those reasons, I ask the House to assent to the deletion of these two Clauses.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to second the Motion.
Personally, I am not at all concerned about Clause 68, and if it had been possible to oppose Clause 63 without opposing Clause 68, I would have done so. I am very sorry to have to oppose any Corporation Bill. I have had 17 years' experience of local authorities; I am a vice-president of the Municipal Corporations Association, and I claim that I have as close and intimate a knowledge of local government work as any Member of the House.

Mr. PALIN: Does the hon. Member claim to speak for the Municipal Corporations Association in this matter?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I never claimed to do so.

Mr. PALIN: That was not made clear.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: If the hon. Member has a little patience he will hear me develop my argument, and he can express his own views in due course. I have a perfect right to make my position quite clear, and I am stating a fact which he cannot deny. I want the House to understand why it is that I regret to have to oppose any Corporation Bill, and surely it is right that I should give as a reason the fact that I am an official of an organisation which has been formed to
look after the interests of municipal corporations. But when I saw Clause 63 of this Bill I felt that it was my duty, as one deeply interested in local government work, to oppose that Clause. When objection was taken to this Bill, the Lord Privy Seal took exception to hon. Members objecting to any Bill which he had certified.
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that merely objecting to a Bill is necessarily delaying that Bill's progress. No. Bill can go forward before 12th February, the last day on which petitions can be laid against the Bills, and it is not right or fair to ask the House to pass Bills in a slipshod fashion, with Clauses which may be detrimental to the interests of many people, merely because certain portions of those Bills have been certified by the Lord Privy Seal. If the promoters of these Bills are anxious to get the Clauses relating to the provision of work for the unemployed, they ought not to tack on other Clauses such as this, which are highly controversial and introduce new principles, and then ask us to pass them without discussion. We were exercising our duty in opposing this Bill until such time as we had an opportunity of debating these controversial points.
What are the objections to this Clause? In the first place I agree with the Mover that this is a national and not a local question. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. R. A. Taylor) introduced a Bill dealing with shop hours which I supported because it was to apply to the whole country and not to one locality. There are Education Acts which deal with the employment of boys in the evenings as errand boys, and, if we get, as we are promised, a Bill to raise the school age, further regulations will be introduced as regards juvenile labour. We already have Shop Hours Acts and various by-laws and regulations affecting juvenile labour, and, lastly, there are the Factories and Workshops Acts regulating hours and conditions for those employed in such places. The Corporation of Liverpool seek permission to make by-laws of their own on this subject and what those by-laws may be, we do not know. Nothing is said in the Clause as to what hours or conditions are to be imposed That is not a matter for the Liverpool Corporation or any other
corporation to decide. It is for this House to decide as to the conditions of labour either for juveniles, or for adults and juveniles alike, in any trade which is to be regulated.
There is another grave objection. There are other municipal authorities whose areas come right up to the borders of Liverpool. They will not have these powers, and, thus, confusion will be worse confounded. There will be regulations operating in one district, but not in adjacent districts. A local authority in asking for such powers as this, is asking too much. In justification of my plea that this Clause should be deleted, I would recall to hon. Members a Debate in this House on 29th November, 1929, on a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), called the Children and Young Persons (Employment and Protection) Bill. The promoter of the Bill on that occasion thought fit to move the adjournment of the Debate in order that he might take into consideration certain suggestions made by the Home Secretary and the suggestions made by the Home Secretary on that occasion, apply, I submit, with even greater force to the Clause which we are debating than they did to that Bill. The hon. Member for West Leyton mentioned the employment of boys for excessive hours as van boys, and related his own experiences as an errand boy and made out a very good case for Parliament considering the subject seriously. The Home Secretary suggested that it might be wise for the hon. Member to postpone the Second Reading of the Bill if not to withdraw it altogether. The Home Secretary said:
The attitude of the Government, then, is that of asking the promoters of this Bill "—
as I am going to ask the promoters of this Clause—
whether their purpose will not have been served by the Debate to-day and by trusting to the several separate Measures which the Government already either have introduced or have announced their intention to introduce. If this Bill were given a Second Reading and sent upstairs, I fear that the time of many Members of this House would be consumed in fruitless debate, for three-fourths at least of the ground covered by this Bill has already been covered by the other Bills to which I have referred (the Bills already mentioned dealing with juvenile labour). The suggestion has been made, and it is well worth serious consideration by the promoters, that the better
course would be to withdraw this Bill and to rely upon the good will of the House and the desire of the House to carry these proposals as far as is practicable through the agency of the other Bilk to which I have referred.
Then the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) said:
Besides the Factories Bill, there was, I think, in preparation in the Home Office during the last year or two a Children's Bill, supplementary to the Factories Bill. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he hopes to introduce that Bill or the version of it that the present Government decide to bring forward.
The Home Secretary's reply was:
I could not say precisely when, but we are anxious to get ahead with that Bill as early as possible, and, when we 6ee and know the course of public business on resuming after the Christmas holidays, I hope to be able to make some announcement about it.
Later, the hon. Member for West Leyton put this question to the Home Secretary:
Can he give me an assurance, if the categories which I suggest are not included in his prospective Bill, that they will be covered by legislation at an early date?
The Home Secretary's reply to that question was:
It is a fact that the primary conditions of that group of workers referred to by my hon. Friend have already been under consideration by the Government. Naturally, we do not want to overweight any particular Bill which we intend to introduce, but I can give him a friendly assurance that when we have disposed of the Factories Bill, which covers only those employed in factories as they are known, we are quite eager and ready to try and cover the remaining groups by a separate Bill which would be introduced as early as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1929; Cols. 1833–1836–1844, Vol. 232.]
8.0 p.m.
In view of that pronouncement by the Home Secretary, that the Government have on the stocks a Bill to deal with this question, not in any parochial fashion, but in a national way, as it ought to be dealt with, surely it would be better for the promoters of this Bill to withdraw this Clause and let the Home Secretary have a free hand to deal with the question as it should be dealt with. On the 12th December last a notice was put on the Order Paper withdrawing the Bill which had been introduced to deal with this question, and the only conclusion that I can come to is that the Home
Secretary, after making this promise in the House, had reaffirmed it to the hon. Member who introduced that Bill, and that it is the intention of the Government, as I hope it is, to introduce a Bill to deal with this very vexed question in a national way, and not leave it for local authorities such as Liverpool to come along, at very great expense, in order to get these powers from this House.
Speaking as one who is keenly interested in local government being carried on in a right and proper way, I cannot see why the authorities in Liverpool are asking for this Clause. When we are dealing with this question—and I am speaking now as an administrator—it is surely far better that our police authorities should take their orders from the Home Office which has to administer these national Acts of Parliament. You are going to make confusion if you allow this Clause to go through, and you will make it far more difficult for those who are keenly interested in this question of the regulations of juvenile labour. I want to see the Liverpool Corporation get on with the projects scheduled in this Bill for the relief of unemployment and with the other powers that they seek which may be right and proper, but this House has always been jealous of granting to one Corporation something entirely new that has never been discussed and approved by Parliament. It is not right to smuggle a small Clause such as this into a large Bill such as this, when we know that the Government themselves are dealing with this question in a national way.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): I think it may be for the convenience of the House if I make some observations immediately in connection with Clause 63, which particularly concerns the Department with which I am associated. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) seemed to deprecate the action of the Liverpool Corporation in seeking to acquire the powers set out in Clause 63, but there is nothing unusual about their action, because over 30 years ago they sought to acquire powers to deal with street trading, and certain powers were embodied in a private Bill. Those powers received the approval of the Home Office, and the experiment
was a great success, the example of Liverpool being followed, I am advised, by many other local authorities. I have no doubt that the Liverpool Corporation had to make out a very strong case indeed for the acquisition of those powers, and I assume that if this Bill, including Clause 63, is sent to the Local Legislation Committee, it will be incumbent upon the promoters to make an equally strong case for Clause 63.
I venture to say that this Clause, seeking, as it does, to better the conditions of van boys and errand boys, will attract the sympathy of Members of all parties. It is a step in the right direction; but, at the same time, I have to point, as the hon. Member for Grimsby has already done, to the attitude of the Government in connection with the problem involved in this particular Clause. It is true that in a Debate on the 29th November last year, on the Second Reading of the Young Persons (Employment and Protection) Bill, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made reference to future legislation on this subject. In fact, he made two references. He said first:
When we have disposed of the Factories Bill which covers only those employed in factories as they are known, we are quite eager and ready to try and cover the remaining groups by a separate Bill which would be introduced as early as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November. 1929: col. 1841, Vol. 23–2.]
That is a quotation which also fell from the lips of the hon. Member for Grimsby. Later in the Debate the Home Secretary said: '
I have undertaken to deal with the other matters in a separate Bill, and I have the van boys specially in mind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1929; col. 1868, Vol. 232.1
So far as the detailed nature of the proposed legislation is concerned, I am not in a position to make any direct statement, for, of course, we have not yet had an opportunity of coming to a decision upon the points at issue, but at any rate those statements did and do in fact indicate the attitude of the Government on this question. It may well be that, as the hon. Member for Grimsby suggests, some feeling may arise in connection with the proposed granting of these powers to a local authority, in advance of general legislation. That, as I gather, is his view, but, on the other hand, from the evidence in
our possession, I think we must admit that Liverpool would appear to have a problem peculiar to itself, having regard to the nature of its trade, its commerce and its transport; and I must confess, despite all that I have said in reference to the attitude of the Government, that I did not hear any real, substantial argument as to why this Clause of the Bill should not go to the Local Legislation Committee for consideration.
So far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, we feel that this Clause ought to be permitted to go to that Committee. It will be for the promoters to make their case, and I have no doubt that they will have to make a strong case, to secure these powers, particularly having regard to the proposal of the Government to introduce legislation at some later date, whenever that may be, upon this question. Therefore, despite the attitude of the Government so far as the future is concerned, I have to urge the House to allow this Clause to go to the Committee and to allow the promoters to make their case, such as it may be. It may be that the Clause as drawn is not perfect, but those points will be brought out, I have no doubt, in Committee, and the Committee will be able to make such Amendments as in its wisdom it may think fit to do. Under these circumstances, I venture respectfully to suggest that the House should permit this Clause to remain in the Bill.

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I rise to oppose the Instruction. We have had the general principle enunciated that the matters that are raised in these two Clauses should not be dealt with in a private Bill, but should be dealt with in a Bill covering the whole country. That is quite intelligible and, up to a point, very sound, but I have to put two or three points in that connection. The first is this: When will that general Bill come forward? However willing any Member of the Government, or the whole of the Government, may be, there is no certainty when that Bill will come forward. I know I may be chaffed when I say that we have heard promises or suggestions about a Factory Bill for some time past, but we have not seen that Bill yet, and the difficulties of making good a promise are even greater at the moment, in view of the burden of legislation and other hindrances in the way. Therefore, it is only
fair to consider this quite apart from the general principles which have been enunciated. We have an old motto, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush," and we have another motto, "Anybody's business is nobody's business."
Liverpool, as has been said already, is in a special position in this matter, but in any case Liverpool has brought this proposal forward, realising the need at the moment to be a very crying need. Why should Liverpool be put off until the opportunity offers, perhaps years hence, to get a general Bill, when Liverpool has already proved itself in many different ways to have led the van in many of these social matters? I can quite understand the hon. Members for Basingstoke (Viscount Lymington) and Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), who speak for certain comparatively small boroughs. They may be most excellently managed boroughs, but I am speaking for one of the largest boroughs in England, which is capable of a very large extent of self-government and which deals with a very large area and with very large funds. You have quite a small Parliament in itself there, and it is quite capable of facing this matter.
We have heard a suggestion that the thing crept into the Bill. Anybody who knows what is taking place knows that it is perfectly ridiculous to speak of such a thing. It has all been done in the open, all thrashed out in the City Council and in the papers; everybody knows of it, and every hon. Member has in his possession communications of various kinds calling attention to the Bill, either in favour of it or against it, and pointing out these Clauses in a particular way. We can therefore dismiss any suggestion about these things being done in the dark or subtly or unknown. We can also put aside the suggestion that this area, which is so well governed, and which has been in the van of progress for many years, should be asked to sit down and wait for years for a remedy for what they know to be a crying evil. Even if it were not, the position in Liverpool is different from that in the rest of the country. Those who know the geographical position of Liverpool as a commercial and a distributing centre know that the question of van boys is important. People must realise that in a peculiarly
situated city like Liverpool, which has no centre, and lies lengthwise on the Port, enormous distances are to be travelled, and, unless there is a watchful eye on the youth of the city and a deep interest in them, as there is in Liverpool, to see that they do not suffer through their meals being neglected, or through their systems being overdone, or through lack of education, proper and humane consideration is not given to these matters. The question arises in Liverpool owing to its peculiar position.
Under these circumstances, who are the proper people to discuss this matter? Can the Bill be thrown out by the House after a few hours' debate, when there is a local legislation committee, consisting of capable people, where the pros and cons can be thrashed out and every point argued? Why should the whole House be troubled with these details? Why should not those who are experienced in studying these matters have it before them? Why should not the Liverpool Council, which has studied this matter, and has not put it in the Bill suddenly, but only after protracted study, be allowed the opportunity of submitting their case to the Committee? I am speaking at the moment about the van boys, who are covered by Clause 63, about which I feel strongly, for the problem calls for immediate attention, and I say, "Let Liverpool have the opportunity of once more showing the way." It is within the power of the Committee—and I expect that they will do it—to put a limiting Clause in the Bill, so that, when there is general legislation the particular Clauses concerned will be overridden by the general legislation. There is no demand for these powers in the rest of the country, and we say that here is an opportunity of allowing Liverpool to deal with what they know in the City Council to be a genuine need. We are prepared to do it, and it will be a test and a help to the country in judging this question. Something has been said about bylaws, and the powers of the City Council to draw up bylaws. But is it overlooked that these bylaws must be submitted for approval to the Home Office?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Unless you have legislation in this House on the matter, what bylaws have the Home Office to work on?

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: We have power to draft by-laws, and they will be submitted to the Home Office for approval, and no by-law can be passed which is not in accordance with the general approval of the Home Office. With regard to Clause 68, the hon. Member for Grimsby said that the would rather support Clause 68 than Clause 63.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I said that I was not concerned with Clause 68 in any way.

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: The Noble Lord, the Member for Basingstoke (Viscount Lymington), spoke about Clause 63, and said it was going to involve considerable cost. All I can say is: let Liverpool have the opportunity of putting before the Local Legislation Committee a chance of studying this matter. I am sure that hon. Members, on whatever side they sit, would not at this moment, or at any time, willingly do anything that would raise the cost of food to the consumer, but I understand from the promoters of the Bill—and I know something about the City Council, having just retired from it—that that matter has been studied, and they see no reason whatever why it should cost the consumer any more. There, again, surely it is a Committee point. I agree that it is desirable that these sanitary regulations should operate throughout the country, but why wait, when Liverpool is prepared to do something in the matter? It is undoubtedly for the benefit of the people, and it is our particular responsibility to see that the people are helped and cared for. I oppose this Instruction, because there is every opportunity to deal with all the points that have been raised, and many others which may arise, by the expert Committee to which this House has delegated the general responsibility of examining such Bills. They are qualified to do it, and they have the opportunity of having the question properly ventilated. There is nothing in principle in these two Clauses which the House, as the guardian of the nation, has any need to take objection. I urge, therefore, that the Bill should take its normal course.

Question, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clauses 63 and 68," put, and negatived

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL (Certified Bill) (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: It was my intention to move, "That the Bill be read a Second time this day six months," but I am pleased to say that it will be unnecessary to proceed with this Motion. I put it down owing to a Clause in the Bill which would have a very serious effect on a portion of the county which I represent. Clause 43 says:
The Company may abandon the maintenance and use of all or any part or parts of their docks, wharves and quays at Connahs Quay and thereupon all powers and obligations conferred or imposed upon the Company with respect to or in connection with the said docks, wharves and quays shall cease.
When this Clause came to the knowledge of local authorities and those specially interested in the trade of the district there was general alarm. It was felt that if the docks at Connahs Quay were closed it would deal a severe blow at industry in this area. For some years the navigation of the river Dee has not been so good as it formerly was, and steps have been taken by local authorities with a view to seeing whether something could be done to improve the navigation, and the closing of Connahs Quay dock would have been a very serious blow to trade and would have hampered the local authorities in their proposals for developing the navigation. The industrial life of the county depends largely upon the river Dec. At the moment there is a vast amount of unemployment in the district, and if this Bill were passed with this clause in it in its present form there is no doubt the unemployment would be increased.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: May I interrupt the hon. Member for a moment?

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: I am just coming to another point. The matter was taken up by the local authorities, including the Flintshire County Council. So great was the interest in the Bill, and so keen were the objectors,
that practically every local authority in the area took action with a view to seeing whether something could not be done to prevent this Clause being included in the Bill. The County Council met under the presidency of Sir John Eldon Bankes the chairman of the Parliamentary Committee. They regarded the matter as one of very serious concern to the county, and a large deputation was sent to London yesterday to see the representatives of the London and North Eastern Railway Company. It was the largest and most influential deputation that ever came up from Flintshire on a matter concerning the county. As a result of the considerations placed before the railway company by the deputation we have to-day, I am pleased to say, received an assurance from the company that steps will be taken which, I think will meet the views of the local authorities as represented by that deputation. By last night's post the solicitor to the Company communicated with Sir John Eldon Bankes, who led the deputation, and gave an undertaking that if the clause was not further objected to the Company would be prepared to agree to retain a portion of the wharf regarded by the local authority as essential if the dock was to continue in existence, and to put it in a reasonable state of repair. Upon the receipt of this letter the Flintshire County Council, who met to-day, decided not to proceed further with their objection, and relying upon the assurance that has been given, and which we all know will be honourably carried out by the railway company, I am now in a position to withdraw my opposition to the Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the and at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
I rise to oppose this Bill not on account of anything that it contains, but following a time-honoured custom that the Second Reading of a Railway Bill provides an occasion when general matters concerning the railway company can be raised. I was very much interested in the remark of the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) that he had received an assurance from the London and North Eastern Railway Company about a certain matter, and was perfectly
certain the company would honour that assurance. I wish him well in his assurance, I wish him every success. I hope his assurance will be better honoured than some assurances which we have received from the same railway company in the past. Like other hon. Members I have in the past blocked various Railway Bills, and there have been subsequent negotiations with the railway company with regard to the objections we have raised. Sometimes they have been able to give way to us, and as other times they have said they were not able to give way, but there was always this about the other companies, that they showed what I should term common honesty and common decency. I had a different experience with this particular railway company, and it is the first and only occasion in connection with this House in which I have known a person or a group of people deliberately—as I think—not to keep their word. We had a special grievance in Scotland which we thought was irksome, although some hon. Members may not think it amounted to very much. The London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company were promoting a Bill and we approached them on this matter and there were negotiations. On the first occasion when we asked them they could not give way to us, but later they did.
The point against the railway company is briefly this In Glasgow and Edinburgh the London and North Eastern Railway Company own two very large stations, the Edinburgh station being one of the biggest, I believe, in the country. The London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company also own stations there. The common practice of the two companies in the past was to charge persons who wished to go on to the platforms a platform fee of 3d. each. The London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company gave way to us after an appeal was made to them to reduce that charge. There was a special human point about that appeal. We have at times bursts of migration from Glasgow, parties of young men and young women are going abroad. On such occasions poor people, very often terribly poor people, march in from the surrounding districts to see their relatives off. Maybe half a dozen people, or maybe three, may come to see a relative off. Possibly it is the last occasion on
which they will see their relatives. They felt this charge to be too high. The London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company realised the human aide of this matter, and in negotiations before their Bill came on they gave us a guarantee that they would revise the platform fees. That company carried out their word, and in their big stations in Glasgow and Edinburgh the platform fee has been reduced to the general charge of a penny.
When we approached the London and North Eastern Railway Company they showed some contempt for Members of Parliament. They said, "You bullied the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company, you blackmailed them, but you will not blackmail us." We held up their Bill, and on the night the Bill came on, while the present Financial Secretary to the War Office was in the process of making a speech on this very subject, we were engaged in negotiations in the central hall. I am not going to say we had anything in writing, because in past negotiations with railway companies I have always found that we could take their word without requiring statements to be set down in black and white. On that occasion, in the central hall, we met various people connected with the London and North Eastern Railway Company, and if ever an assurance was given to Members of Parliament—the hon. Member for South East Ham (Mr. Barnes) was there at the time of these negotiations. We had no desire then to block this Bill if only we could get what we wanted by a friendly conversation. We met the promoters, and they gave us every assurance that this railway company would fall into line with what has been done on this question by every other railway company in the country in regard to their station platforms, and what has also been done in the case of Edinburgh and Glasgow. After this company had got their Bill, after we had accepted their assurances, and after we had given them that decent treatment which railway companies ask for, they treated us with contempt.
I never knew a case in which a company so deliberately broke their word as in this case. I anticipated that this company would have immediately, through its agents, made some approach
to meet us in order to discuss the points which we wished to raise, but they knew that they had done the wrong thing, and we knew that they would not carry out their word because they never came near us. This company issued a statement of their case, and they mentioned Queen Street Station. How did they know that we were going to raise that question, because they never came to ascertain our views? We knew that on a previous occasion the company had deliberately broken their word. Hon. Members know that it is a settled principle in this House, after negotiations, to take people's word.
I know that some people think that the point I am raising is a very small one, but it is to me an important matter when four or five members of a family wish to see their brother off to Canada, and to them it is something of considerable importance. I feel that we have been dealt with in a contemptuous fashion by this railway company. What is the case for not granting our concession? They say that we have blocked this Bill on account of what has happened in regard to Queen Street Station, but what is their objection in the case of Waverley Station? I am not at all anxious to hold up this Bill, and I confess that I feel very uncomfortable in blocking this Measure, because I know there are a good many desirable elements in it. None of us wish to block Bills just for the sake of doing so. Let us take one of the objections which has been raised by this company? A constituent of mine was convicted for creating a disturbance on one of their platforms, and this has been put forward as a reason for refusing our request. On this question, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway gave way, and everyone knows that the Central Station is four times greater than the Queen Street Station. May I also point out that the City of Glasgow is becoming more sober each year, and I think that does away with the argument that some of those who would go on the platform might be the worse for liquor.
The people who frequent the Central Station conduct themselves decently when they go to see their friends off, and they pay their pennies to go on the platform where they shake hands probably for the last time with their friends who are going abroad. This comparatively powerful
company has broken its word, and it has treated us with absolute contempt. I know that any Member of this House who gives an undertaking looks upon his word as his bond. For these reasons, I hope the House will take the only step it can do to show its contempt for conduct of the kind which I have described. If the company do not concede the point which we have asked them to concede, I hope the House will show its contempt for conduct of that kind by rejecting this Measure.

Mr. McKINLAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I have never had experience of negotiating with any of the railway companies, and I have never been able to appreciate the sylvan beauties of Queen Street Station. My reason for objecting to this Bill is not that I desire to hold up work that is going to be provided for the unemployed. I arrived at this House in June last, and, until then, I was a victim of the railway company's travelling facilities for workmen. Queen Street Station is a landmark in the City of Glasgow. It is a positive disgrace, not only to the London and North Eastern Railway, but to the second City of the British Empire. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may dispute Glasgow's claim in that respect, but there is perfect unanimity among the Glasgow Members in regard to it. My chief reason for opposing this Bill lies in the horrible conditions at Queen Street Station. No person would desire to pay 3d. to go on to the platform at Queen Street in order to admire the station, and it is sheer humbug to suggest that the object of this charge is the prevention of accidents. I should be glad if the representatives of the railway company would let me have, for my own information, exactly the census of accidents prior to and after this imposition, for imposition it is.
There is another sharp practice, not confined to the London and North Eastern Railway, but also carried on by the London, Midland and Scottish Bail-way within the City area. I refer to the practice of issuing tickets at Queen Street Station, charging the same fare which is charged at all the other stations within the City, and then, if you arrive at your destination in the reverse direction, making you pay excess fare. It costs, I think, 9d. return from Queen
Street to Milngavie, but, if you break your journey at Partick, which is two miles nearer to Milngavie than Queen Street, they will charge you another 3d. I have been a victim of this sharp practice, for Partick Station is in my Division. I want to know from the London and North Eastern Railway what they are going to do about this, and what they are going to do about the workmen's tariff; and also what they are going to do with regard to Queen Street Tunnel. One needs a fortnight's fresh air treatment after passing through Queen Street Tunnel, and I would suggest to the Lord Privy Seal, were he here, that suitable employment for unemployed people in the West of Scotland might be provided by filling up the tunnel and closing Queen Street Station.
The directors of the London and North Eastern Railway give absolutely no consideration to the travelling public in Glasgow. This may be, I say quite frankly, a form of blackmail, but the Scottish Labour Members of Parliament put into the coffers of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway every week £ 120 that might possibly find its way into the coffers of the London and North Eastern Railway were they to cater for the people who travel South from Glasgow. I hope that the objection to this Bill will not be withdrawn until we have a definite assurance that the complaints made by Members on this side of the House, and I believe also by Members on the other side, as to the grievances of the travelling public, will be given proper attention. The travelling public at present are compelled to use Queen Street Station—no person would do so of his own volition—and we desire to be protected; and, until we get that protection, so long as I am a Member of this House the London and North Eastern Railway will receive no change from me on any Bill that they promote.

Mr. HASLAM: I desire to take advantage of the time-honoured custom and to bring before the House a small grievance before assenting to the Second Reading of this Bill. I desire to deprecate the word "blackmail" which was used by the Seconder of the Amendment Surely the principle of "grievances before Supply" is a time-honoured custom of this House, and has been its guiding principle for centuries. Having started in this vein, I purpose descending
from the sublime to the ridiculous, and bringing my grievance, which is a very small one, to the attention of those representing the railway companies and of this House. It concerns only a Lincolnshire village and the people who dwell in the surrounding parts. It has not the same magnitude as the grievance of which we heard from the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones). It has not the dignity of being supported by such a body as a county council, or even a district council, but I am empowered to represent, and I do represent on this occasion a parish council, and I feel that, although this is but a small matter and concerns only these rural people, it will receive exactly the same attention from this House and from the railway company as if it were a matter of greater magnitude.
The grievance is simply this, that in this village there is a station, which has a level crossing, and over that level crossing the railway company have provided a footbridge, so that intending passengers approaching the railway station from the side opposite to the platform from which their train starts are able safely to cross over the railway lines by the footbridge. This footbridge, however, has been closed for over a year, and the custom is that, five minutes before the trains come in, the roadway gates over the level crossing are closed, and, therefore, if an intending passenger arrives five-minutes before the train comes in, he is confronted with this obstacle to his progress, and there is no footbridge over which he can cross the line. Sometimes, I am informed, these roadway gates are closed even 10 minutes before the arrival of the train. In these circumstances, it has been the custom of the people of this village and of the surrounding districts to climb over the obstacle in question and to cross the line. I would submit, however, that that is a very undesirable custom, which might very well lead to serious accidents and even loss of life. That has been going on now for over a year, and apparently there is no prospect whatever of anything being done to put the footbridge in repair, which is what I want to ask the company to do. I am sure that this custom of the village will be looked upon with indulgence by the House. It may be that it offends against the bylaws of
the company, but I suggest that a human being who has come, perhaps, two or three miles to catch a train, when that train is not in for five minutes, is not going to stand on the opposite side to the platform, wait five minutes until the train comes in, and then perhaps wait another two or three hours for the next train. This particular custom is an exceedingly unpleasant one for ladies. It is, indeed, from ladies that I have received this complaint, because they have to climb over these very high gates, and I really think that it is a grievance which should be remedied. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the name of the village?"] Wainfleet. In centuries gone by, Wainfleet was an important port, and in the eleventh century it made a most important contribution to the British Navy.

Major CARVER: As my name is on the Bill, and being a director of the company, I should like to be allowed to make some remarks on the statements that have been made. I have had no notice about the footbridge mentioned by my hon. Friend, but if he will write to me, or to the company, we will see that the ladies in his constituency who use the footbridge are looked after, and we will try to make an improvement. The Bill is a very large and comprehensive one, and has the approval of the Lord Privy Seal. It deals with works in all parts of the country, and the company will spend considerably over £1,250,000, which must necessarily relieve unemployment. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) for withdrawing his Amendment, although I know it was moved by the hon. Member opposite. The company will stand up to what it has said. The matter of Connahs Quay can be discussed in Committee. The railway officials met a deputation from Flintshire, and I am certain that terms will be arranged and all parties, especially trading parties and the local authorities in the neighbourhood, will be satisfied. We have had a very harrowing story from the other side., The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has told us about his grievances and those of his constituents, who have to pay 3d. to obtain platform tickets. I had always understood that the coin of controversy in Scotland was not 3d. but 6d. I should like to explain why 3d. is charged. Queen Street Station, Glasgow, has a very
narrow platform indeed. On each side there are main line trains, and it is a source of danger if the platforms are crowded. It is entirely in the interests of the public that this charge is kept on. It is very necessary that passengers, and porters wheeling luggage barrows, should have a clear way as, if the platform is crowded, it is a danger to the public. If the company were to reduce the price to 1d., they would make a great deal more money, but they are out for the public safety and for facilities for the travelling public. Accidents have taken place there, and we want to be very careful that they do not take place again.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us when the accidents took place? His argument may have some bearing on Queen Street, but it is ridiculous when it comes to Waverley.

9.0 p.m.

Major CARVER: I have particulars of the accident, and of other accidents which have been avoided owing to the action of the officials. As to Waverley, there is no better managed station in the world. The Midland is a terminal station. The North Eastern is a through station as well as a terminal station. There are during the day a great many carriages that come from the North and from Glasgow, which have to be shunted on to trains going South. The automatic coupling system is used, and it is very necessary that the platforms should be clear and that the shunting engine driver should be able to see the hand signals on the platform as he moves his carriage down on to the train that is going South. If he goes too fast, the passengers are jolted, and if he goes too slowly, the couplings are not properly effective. It is necessary for the platform to be clear so that the driver can see what he is doing and where he is going and the right pace to go. There have been times when the company have been obliged to stop the issue of passenger tickets altogether. The charge is not put on in any aggressive sense whatever. We are studying the public convenience and safety and, in the interests of the travelling public, we consider that this charge should be made so as to act as a deterrent. I, therefore, ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading and send it to Committee.

Mr. EDE: My hon. Friend the Member for Partick (Mr. McKinlay) alluded to his constituency as being the second City of the Empire which caused some interruption on these benches. We were not, however, disputing the claim of his constituency to be the second City of the Empire. We were disputing which was the first. I desire, therefore, to speak now on behalf of the most important part of the Empire served by the North Eastern Railway, namely, the Tyneside. In the summer I asked the Minister of Transport if he would use his influence to secure the electrification of the lines to South Shields and Sunderland, and he replied that he was sending the suggestion along to the company for their consideration. I asked him in the autumn what had happened to it and he said they had come to the conclusion that they could electrify none of the lines in that part of the country, nor in Durham. Since then my hon. Friend has been to South Shields and he desired to get to Newcastle in order to return to London. He was warned by everyone there that if he wanted to get to Newcastle quickly the one way by which he must not travel was by the North Eastern Railway. He would even get quicker from the terminus station by a fast travelling horse vehicle than by the train.
This railway serves a very populous part of the country. On the other bank of the Tyne the early electrification of the line to Tynemouth was one of the first examples of electrification. It has been an outstanding success. If a similar system were provided on the southern bank of the Tyne, uniting the great industrial centres there, it would be of very great convenience to the public, and, judging by the effect of the electrification of the north bank of the Tyne and the electrification of the suburban system of the Southern Railway, it would be of very great advantage to the railway company as well. There is a very strong feeling that the time has come when, in conjunction with the work which is being urged by the Lord Privy Seal, the electrification of this railway should be undertaken. The London and North Eastern Railway Company have drawn, and continue to draw in spite of trade depression, vast revenues from that section of the community, and the population probably are as badly served by rail as any part
of England. There is a very strong feeling in the district among the local governing bodies and the general population that it is high time that the London and North Eastern Railway Company proceeded on the south bank of the Tyne to extend the system which has proved so successful to them and so valuable to the inhabitants on the north bank of the Tyne.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I do not wish to stand in the way of the Motion which is to be moved later on this evening, but I wish to submit that no really sufficient reason has yet been advanced for taking a step which practically means the rejection of this Bill, especially in view of the fact that it has been certified by the Lord Privy Seal as a Bill likely to give employment. That is the reason, and the sole reason, why I stand here in support of this Bill. All through the districts and all down the coast served by the London and North Eastern Railway unemployment is at its worst. This is the side of the country which is suffering more than any other, and the principal aim and object of this Bill—and this is the reason it has received preferential treatment from the Lord Privy Seal—is to do something at any rate towards reducing that unemployment.
In the city which I represent unemployment has been grievous for many years, and at the present moment it is worse than it has ever been in the memory of man. I recognise that this Bill, if it is allowed to pass into law, will provide work for 300 or 400 men in a city where the unemployment figures are approximately 15,000. Hon. Members may say that 300 or 400 is not a very large number out of such an appalling total. It may not be a very large number, but it is something, and 300 or 400 men put back to good work will mean a great deal for the prosperity of the city. Hull has not had a good time during the past 20 years. All through the War, it was on what one might call the danger side of the country, and consequently, as a port, it had not that access to trade as had the ports on the other side of the country, such as Liverpool and Bristol. The result of all this is, that the accumulative savings in the city, particularly of the workers, were dissipated earlier than the savings of the people in other parts
of the country, and consequently the distress has been greater. I appeal to the House to allow this Bill to go through for that reason if for no other. The work which is going to be done at Queen's Dock will do something towards mitigating unemployment.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) made an attack on the company on the subject of charging 3d. for platform tickets at Queen Street Station, Glasgow, and at Waverley Station, Edinburgh. I must admit that I know nothing about Queen Street Station at Glasgow, but I remember not many years ago a scene at Waverley Station, Edinburgh, which, in my opinion, has fully justified the company in charging 3d. for platform tickets. It was on a Saturday night. I was coming back from an international football match at Edinburgh. The scene on the platform almost baffled description. I am prepared to take the hon. Gentleman's word to the effect that drinking has diminished in Scotland to an enormous extent, but on that occasion I did not notice it.

Mr. MAXTON: It was England versus Scotland.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Exactly. Even spectators of a football match in Scotland have a right to expect that they shall not be squeezed off the platform when they want to get their train back to the South. That was in danger of happening. It seemed to me that the crowd was so bulging over the edge of the platform that there was scarcely room for the train to come in at all. Therefore, I can understand why the railway company charge 3d. for platform tickets. It is not because they want to make additional money out of platform tickets, but merely in order to keep the platforms clear for people who wish to travel, and because, under certain circumstances, they consider it necessary to put a charge on platform tickets which they rightly and intentionally consider prohibitive. But that is not what I rose to speak about tonight. I submit that the mere fact that the London and North Eastern Railway Company are charging 3d. for a platform ticket in Scotland is not a valid reason for depriving 300 m 400 men of employment in Hull.

Mr. STEPHEN: I do not -want to take up the time of the Mover of the Motion which is to be discussed later, but I think that the hon. Member himself will recognise that the reply given on behalf of the railway company in connection with this Bill is very disappointing. I would like to ask the hon. and gallant Member for Howdenshire (Major Carver), who spoke on behalf of the railway company, why he did not deal with the specific charge of a breach of faith on the part of the railway company in connection with the platform tickets.

Major CARVER: My answer is that there has been no breach of faith whatever on the part of the railway company, and that no promise was made.

Mr. STEPHEN: I want to say to my fellow Members in the House that when I met the representatives of this railway company in the inner Lobby, a definite assurance was given that they would go into this matter, and that they would reduce the charge to a penny, the same charge as was imposed by other railway companies. I want to point out that when the big Bill dealing with the competition of the omnibuses was before the House, and the present Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office was raising opposition, the assurance was given that he need not press his opposition because this matter was going to be dealt with and a charge of a penny was going to be made for platform tickets. That was a definite statement. I, the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) heard the assurance given, and I think our word is as good as the word of any representative of this railway company. I want the hon. and gallant Member, who, I take it, is a director of the company, to realise the position into which his advisers in this matter are putting his company. I possibly know more about Queen Street-Station than any other Member of the House, because it so happens that I live, when in Glasgow, in a house which is owned by the London and North Eastern Railway Company, and from which one looks down into Queen Street Station. Every time I go there I have that ugly view in front of me, and I am disturbed at all hours of the night by trains going out of the station
The hon. and gallant Member says that this charge was put on because of the crowded platform, and as a protection for the public. Formerly, there was no charge. People had free access to the platform, and there were not the dreadful accidents that have been suggested. The charge is a comparatively recent thing. It seems to me that the person who supplied the information to the hon. and gallant Member was insulting him, seeing that he had to speak for the railway company. I do not want anyone to be thrown out of employment, but I would suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that he should give the sack to the official who gave him his information.
Take the second point, in regard to Waverley Station. Let the hon. and gallant Member look into the conditions at similar stations in England, which are not termini, such as Newcastle, where there is the platform ticket system operating. I say that the official who advised the hon. and gallant Member in the way that he has done to-night was certainly a most insulting and contemptible person to advise his representative in this House to talk in the way that he did. Trade in this country is bad, and if the railway companies are to be conducted by people who take a view like that, no wonder that trade is bad. The hon. and gallant Member was speaking for the railway company, but he represents in this House a constituency, and he conferred upon the railway company, of which he is a director, a privilege by speaking on its behalf.
I submit that there has been a breach of faith by the representatives of the railway company. If there was any doubt about it, the railway company should have consulted us. In your own statement, a copy of which I have here, is the statement with reference to Queen Street Station. Can the hon. and gallant Member tell us which Member of this House stated to him that he was making objection in respect of this charge at Queen Street Station, on this occasion? Not one. The statement is put down there because of the guilty conscience of a representative of the railway company who lied to his director in this House on this occasion. It is a very serious matter for the hon.
and gallant Member who has been put up to give this 3efenoe, but I suggest to him that he is going to make atonement. In regard to the crowded platform, I can tell him that his arguments do not hold at all. The London, Midland and Scottish Railway tried the system at the Central Station. There were difficulties, it was said, over the crowded platforms. They said that the platforms were not crowded by people who went there to see their folks off to the different parts of the Empire, but that it was the young men and the young women who went there to do their courting in comfort. They provided the platform as a courting place at 3d. a time. Finally, they gave way on the matter, and the arrangements have been working very satisfactorily. It would be the same in the case of Edinburgh. Surely, the hon. Member must realise that the excuse given to him in regard to Waverley is a trumped up excuse.

Major CARVER: Nothing of the kind.

Mr. STEPHEN: If the hon. and gallant Member does not think that it is a trumped up excuse, then it is a matter for his intelligence, and I think that it is a bad job for the London and North Eastern Railway Company and, possibly, a worse job for the people of this country who are dependent upon that railway company to the extent that they are. I do not want to be hard on the hon. and gallant Member in this matter, because I feel sure that he will go into it again. I can assure him that so far as the London and North Eastern Railway Company are concerned, until they deal honourably in this connection, they will have no peace. I would like to know how many other stations in Scotland there are where the London and North Eastern Railway Company charge 3d. for admission to the platform. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will tell me?

Major CARVER: No, I cannot.

Mr. STEPHEN: I would like the hon. and gallant Member to make inquiries as to the number of stations in Scotland and England where a charge of 3d. is made for a platform ticket. There is one complaint which I wish to make in regard to my constituency. I refer to the railway bridge in Bellfield Street. When the engines are passing there, and firing,
sparks are thrown out. A child of one of my constituents was burned by sparks while she was crossing the bridge, which is an ordinary footbridge. The mother asked the railway company for some reparation for the injury that was done to her child, but the company would not admit any responsibility. That is not good business for the railway company. I hope that in connection with Bellfield bridge, in the Camlachie Parliamentary Division, the hon. and gallant Member will ask the officials of the company to see that proper care is exercised when engines are passing that bridge. I trust that we shall get a much more satisfactory answer when the next Bill comes forward for discussion. It is down for next Friday. I daresay we shall have an opportunity of raising our grievances on that Bill.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Hon. Members have taken advantage of their Parliamentary right by raising on this Bill certain grievances on which they feel strongly. As I have done the same thing myself in an earlier House, I cannot complain. It is a misfortune that the hon. and gallant Member who spoke for the railway company did not meet the specific charge which was made against the railway company by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). The hon. Member for Gorbals said specifically—I am not saying whether he was accurate or inaccurate—that the railway company did make a definite arrangement with objectors to a previous Bill, and I did expect the hon. and gallant Member would have met that charge in his speech. It would have been better had he done so. The Ministry of Transport has no record of those negotiations, and I cannot speak about them, nor have I any official jurisdiction as to what is or is not the proper charge for platform admission. Therefore, the Ministry of Transport cannot take any action in the matter. I have, however—and again I am not judging the merits of the dispute—been inquiring in the Department whether any avenue is open to Glasgow people and to hon. Members who represent Glasgow whereby they can secure an inquiry and adjudication upon the point which they have brought to the attention of the House to-night. The position is that a railway company's station is private property to which they
are free to admit or to refuse to admit any persons who are not engaged upon business, or travelling upon or using the railway. Therefore, the railway company is legally within its rights in refusing to admit people entirely if they wish, or, if they admit them, to make what charge they like. Neither the Ministry nor anyone else has a legal right to interfere in this matter.
There is, however, a possible avenue of approach which the Glasgow Corporation might take if they so wish, though I cannot say what the result would be. Section 28 of the Railways Act of 1921 provides among other things that the tribunal has power to determine any question brought before them regarding the reasonableness, or otherwise, of any charge made by a railway company for any service or accommodation for which no authorised charge is applicable. Up to the present, no application as to the reasonableness of the charges made for platform tickets has been made before the Railway Rates Tribunal and its jurisdiction to deal with the matter has therefore not been tested. As a hint, and not as advice to my hon. Friends, perhaps they might get the Glasgow Corporation to go into that question and get legal advice as to whether they could raise the matter through that avenue. I only make that suggestion without in any way judging the merits of the dispute—for that is not my official business—but because I feel it my duty, if there is another avenue through which my hon. Friends can raise the matter, that they should be informed of the legal position. I cannot say definitely whether that avenue is entirely legal or may be contested.
Various other points have been raised as is customary on such Bills. The difficulty the House is in is that this Bill, as has been pointed out, will authorise the expenditure of over £1,200,000. It is a Bill which is certified by the Lord Privy Seal as dealing with unemployment and hon. Members going into the Lobby will be called upon to cast their votes on the one side for authorising works to the extent of over £1,200,000 at a time when every million pounds worth of work is earnestly to be desired in the interests of unemployment, or on the other side they must measure the strength of
feeling of hon. Members from Glasgow who maintain that the railway companies are making an excessive charge in charging 3d. for platform admission, as against what is understood to be the more usual charge of one penny. That is the difficulty which the House is in. Hon. Members have raised this point and have pushed it for all they are worth, but, having done that, I am bound to say I think the House would take a considerable responsibility in rejecting a Bill which will authorise works in excess of £1,200,000. Therefore, I personally shall feel bound to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, particularly as it is certified by the Lord Privy Seal in connection with unemployment, while in no way deprecating the fact that hon. Members who feel strongly about the point have used the opportunity as they have. I think hon. Members will agree that I have given them what advice I can as to the possible alternative avenue of raising this point.

Mr. MAXTON: On behalf of my hon. Friends, may I say that we have no intention of doing anything that would be so completely out of proportion as to vote against this Bill on this secondary point, so far as the substance is concerned, to the disadvantage of the unemployed, but there is a very serious matter which I hope the hon. Member who is speaking for the railway companies will not lose sight of. It is a shocking thing in this House if hon. Members come to an honourable understanding with a railway Company or its representative and get a solemn undertaking and on that undertaking withdraw their objections to a Bill and allow it to go through, and then, when this House has been duped into giving the Bill without discussion, the promise given becomes a mere matter of contempt. It would not do if the House of Commons were treated in that way.
This business of certification that we have introduced for the sake of expediting the Lord Privy Seal's work adds another difficulty. I can see what a powerful instrument it is so far as companies who want special privileges are concerned when they come to the House and say we must give them those privileges or else we shall be depriving the unemployed of work. I can see a lot of danger in it, and I would like the railway representative in this House to understand
very plainly that by withdrawing any difficulties at this stage we are not going to make this House merely a happy hunting ground for railway concessionaires or any other body. I would like to say that that story of the hon. and gallant Member's about the Scottish-English international was just a little trivial. There are exceptional occasions when the transport system in any district is completely inadequate to meet the situation, but the explanations given by the hon. Member and by the hon. Member who sits behind him are quite trivial and frivolous, and could easily have been met, but that is not the important point. The important point is that, when an hon. Member of this House receives an undertaking from a company that is asking a concession, that undertaking ought to be carried out.

Major CARVER: May I have the indulgence of the House to answer that statement? I have made definite inquiry and no undertaking whatever was given by the railway company to anybody in this House. They did say that the matter would receive consideration from the directors, and it did receive consideration, but the hon. Members for the Clydeside have made a definite allegation against the company, and I want to say that it is not true and that no statement was made by the company—

Mr. STEPHEN: It is true.

Major CARVER: No statement was made by the company that the charge of 3d. would be taken off.

Mr. STEPHEN: They told you something else. They are lying.

Major CARVER: Some very hard things have been said and violent diatribes have been uttered by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) which I deprecate very much indeed.

Mr. MacLAREN: I have been asked in the course of this discussion to bring before the companies concerned a point in the Bill. The Minister of Transport began to draw a somewhat strange analogy between the charge of 3d. and what the Bill was going to do for unemployment. I think he might have left that to other people. This is the only
opportunity that Members have to raise any points concerning the welfare of those engaged by the company.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: It is the only opportunity we have in the whole year of discussing the question.

Mr. MacLAREN: The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) says he knows more about Queen Street station than any hon. Member. I beg to differ. I have travelled on the line for 12 years between Springburn and Queen Street and know every inch of it. It is a veritable deathtrap and a bottle-neck. If the railway company is seriously perturbed with regard to the safety of passengers, I submit that that is not secured by charging 3d. to go on to the platform. The danger to the public is the bottle-neck tunnel which has existed for 40 or 50 years. The argument with regard to 3d. for a platform ticket will not hold water.
In the old days one could get on to almost any platform for nothing, and people did not fall on to the line. If there is anything in the argument that they are looking after the welfare of the passengers, why not put the charge up to 1s. I know the platform to which the hon. Member refers. It has rather a serious bend in it, and there is no doubt that when you have a long train the man on the shunting engine cannot see the tail lights. That is true; but that is the result of faulty design. To-day you are charging the public for the fault of your architect in the first instance. There is one question I have been asked to put—it does not touch the question of employment which these great schemes are going to give—one of the farces of modern civilisation.
I have been asked by the employés in a workshop in Cowlairs to put their case before those, the responsible authorities. Did I hear a whisper, "Taxation of land values" on the Front Bench. When they understand it I shall begin to think that there is hope for some of them. The employés in this workshop ask that the railway company should do something to bring about peaceable relations in the locomotive shop at Cowlairs. It has recently been established, and I have been assured that the man in charge is ruling with the iron hand of a Kaiser
There used to be peaceful relations between the head office and the meanest employé, but the gentleman who is now chief manager is making the lives of the employés simply unbearable. I am drawing public attention to this and I hope some inquiry will be made and that Mr. Hayward will be advised to act in a more humane way towards the employés. I know the spot; I served my time as apprentice there, and know all about it.
It is futile to argue that this 3d. is going to save the lives of passengers, and I will throw out this hint to the railway company. They are constantly talking of the serious competition of the omnibuses. This charge is not helping the railway companies. The omnibuses have an easy line of competition, and when the railway company begins to raise its fees they are only helping the omnibuses to be a little more overcharged between Queen Street Station and Edinburgh. If they want to facilitate travel they should try to come to an agreement tonight. I know nothing about any previous arrangement but, assuming that a definite undertaking was given to hon. Members, cannot there be a little more come and go on the matter. They need not be so arrogant. People should not be held up by this high tariff. I know that the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) is anxious to put a financial impediment on the easy flow of trade, but I am sure the railway company will see, after what has happened to-night, that it is all in their interests, and in the interests of any future Bills, that matters of this kind should be amicably settled.

Ordered,
That Clauses 3 to 34, inclusive, 36, 37, 39, 47, 48, and 49, and in so far as they apply for the purposes of the said Clauses 3 to 34, inclusive, 36, 37, 39, 47, 48, and 49, the Preamble, and Clauses 1, 2, 50, 53, 54, and 55 of that Bill, be committed to the Committee of Selection."—[Mr. Hayes.] (London and North Eastern Railway (No. 1) Bill.)

Remaining Provisions committed (London and North Eastern Railway (No. 2) Bill).

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL (By Order).

Order for Second Beading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. MORRIS: I have no desire to hold up the passage of this Bill, but I want to ask the promoters one or two questions about one Clause in the Measure. It is a Bill dealing with local government in Cardiff, but included in it is a Clause dealing with a subject which appears to be entirely outside the scope of the Bill. Sub-section (2) of Clause 132 says:
The Corporation may also make by-laws prescribing the maximum fees to be charged by any person holding a licence to carry on an employment agency to applicants for employment or to persons engaging or desiring to engage employés through such agency.
It may be desirable that some of these employment agencies should be controlled, and that the fees they exact should be controlled also, but that is a very wide subject. There are different kinds of agencies in the country, different classes of agencies. It may be that some of the theatrical and domestic agencies should be subject to some measure of control, but that is a subject which concerns agencies in general and should be dealt with in a Bill brought in for that purpose and not in a Bill with the local government of one special city. It has this further serious drawback, that you treat all agencies as being of the same class. Many of them deal with professional people, doctors, teachers, architects, and so on. They go to employment agencies and make their own contracts. The powers which should be sought should be for dealing with those agencies which exact harsh and unconscionable fees, and not a provision in a Bill governing the maximum fees which agencies should charge. How is the corporation to know what are the maximum fees? I should like an assurance from the promoters of the Bill that they will amend the Clause to deal with a certain class of agencies which may be objectionable and merely that they charge harsh and unconscionable fees, or delete the Sub-section entirely from this Bill and deal with the matter in a general way.

Mr. SHORT: In reply to the statement made by the hon. Member, may I say that
under Clause 132 the Corporation seek to prescribe the maximum fees to be charged by any person holding a licence to carry on an employment agency to applicants for employment or to persons engaging or desiring to engage employés through such agencies? The Home Secretary sees some difficulties in the administration of this Clause in its present form. In the first place the subject matter of the Clause will come under the jurisdiction of the Home Secretary, and if the Clause be included in the Bill Amendments will have to be made so that the jurisdiction passes to the Home Secretary rather than to the Minister of Health. The proposed limitation of fees may in some quarters be regarded as a very novel feature, but I think it is a matter that ought to be sent to the Local Legislation Committee so that evidence might be heard from the one side and other and a proper judgment be reached.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Under-Secretary has said that this is a novel procedure and that the Home Office is directly interested because it raises a question of general principle and administration. In that he is right. That being so, following the regular precedent that has always been followed by Government Departments where matters of general interest are involved, I hope we may take it that the Home Office will tender to any Committee before which this Bill goes such advice as is desirable with a view to the proper co-ordination and administration of the law. I am sure that we shall have that assurance.

Mr. SHORT: I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance at once. He will see from the observations that I am about to make that because of the difficulties which will arise in the administration of this Clause it is desirable that some Amendments be made in the Clause. The Home Office should be the deciding authority. It may be necessary, of course, to fix different fees for the different occupations which have been mentioned by the hon. Member who opened the discussion. It may also be necessary for the Home Secretary to decide the appropriate maximum for the particular occupation. My right hon. Friend thinks that this not only creates a difficulty, but that it is not a task that ought to be placed upon his shoulders. Therefore we suggest that the Clause be sent to the Local
Legislation Committee for consideration and amendment, and we are of opinion that it might be far better and simpler to give the licensing authority power to investigate complaints of extortionate and unfair charges and to withdraw the licence, subject to an appeal to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction or Quarter Sessions, if satisfied that some grave abuse has existed. With the assurance that I have given the right hon. Gentleman and the evidence that my right hon. Friend realises that some difficulty may arise in the administration of the Clause as it stands, I hope that the House will allow the Bill to go upstairs so that it may receive the consideration to which it is entitled.

DEPRESSED HEAVY INDUSTRIES.

Major COLVILLE: I beg to move,
That this House views with grave apprehension the present condition of the depressed heavy industries and the failure of His Majesty's Government to take effective measures to assist them, and urges His Majesty's Government to give this question immediate attention and to afford those industries, which are suffering from unfair foreign competition, the opportunity of substantiating their claim to such a measure of safeguarding as would secure their revival and provide an important contribution towards the solution of the unemployment problem.
This is a Resolution which deplores the present depressed condition of certain of the heavy industries of the country, and the fact that His Majesty's Government have not taken effective measures to assist them. It calls upon the Government to give the matter immediate attention, and particularly to afford to these industries an opportunity of substantiating their claim to a measure of safeguarding. When a young and inexperienced Member hears his name read out as successful in the ballot, and realises that he has the privilege of addressing the House, his heart generally rises to his mouth. I am no exception to the rule. Yet I am very grateful for the chance that has been given to me to speak on the subject of the depressed heavy industries. We have heard a lot to-night about the depressed atmosphere of Queen Street Tunnel and such matters. There are 70,000 men out of employment
now in the iron and steel trade. I believe that most of those men could be given employment by safeguarding. Before coming to that industry in particular, I want to speak of the heavy trades in general. I do not think we can do good by any exaggeration of the depression which exists in this country. On the contrary by exaggeration we may even do harm in the eyes of our foreign competitors.
We are still a great manufacturing nation. We succeed in maintaining a higher standard of living generally than other countries. We have what the Prime Minister referred to as an unequalled system of industrial insurance. Yet with all these things we are able to some extent to compete in the open markets for the world. But only to some extent. What are the heavy industries? Shipbuilding, engineering and the group comprising iron, steel and coal. There "are others, but of these I shall speak to-night. The shipbuilding industry in this country is of enormous importance. We still lead the world easily. In 1929 we outbuilt the whole of the rest of the world's tonnage by 300,000 tons. Yet shipbuilding generally may be classed as depressed to this extent: That while we built that huge tonnage many of our slips are empty. Our capacity for shipbuilding was greatly increased during the War. During last year there were never more than 55 or 60 per cent. of our slips occupied at one time, and even then work has often been taken at any unremunerative level. A point to be noticed is this: We speak of disarmament and we all believe in the wise reduction of armaments with due regard for the safety of the country. But let us recognise, in the first instance, what this means. Twenty-five per cent. of ship building in pre-War days was Admiralty work. Let us bear that in mind.
Then take engineering. One branch of engineering, electrical engineering, cannot be said to be depressed. That industry is in a better condition, and I am glad to say that the party with which I am associated has had a good deal to do with the better condition of that industry, because of its great schemes of electrical development throughout the country. Some other branches of engineering are not so fortunate, but I am going to come down to the foundation—iron, steel and
coal. This group of industries employs a very large proportion of wage-earners. I take coal first. The coal industry is very much in the public eye on account of the Coal Bill—that remarkable Measure to which the Government gave birth at the end of last year, and which nearly cost the life of its parent. It has since been altered to some extent and it will give rise to very much discussion in the House. I class that Measure under my Motion. I do not regard it as an effectual step to assist the coal industry. It is simply a statutory increase in price to cover a statutory increase in cost. As far as the great consumers are concerned, such as the iron and steel industry, I see in it a real menace. I see a. risk of the number of unemployed in that industry being largely increased as a result of the higher costs which the passing of the Coal Bill in its present state will cause. What is the position of the coal industry at the present time? The position is that it is improving, and that export markets are being recovered. It is improving for two reasons—first because it has had a respite from political interference for some time, and second because de-rating is helping us to get back our export markets.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That was political interference.

Major COLVILLE: That was interference of the right sort. It was lifting a burden off the industry and not adding a burden on to it, and the result, as the hon. Member knows, is that more men are employed to-day in the mines in Scotland than formerly. De-rating has assisted very largely in the getting back of export markets and that fact ought to be widely known. Coming to the iron and steel industry, I should at the outset state that I personally am connected with that industry, but I do not feel that I owe the House any apology for raising the question of an industry with which I am connected. It is the livelihood of many thousands of men in this country, directly, and it affects, indirectly, many other industries. In the iron and steel trade in this country there are 250,000 registered employés, and, of these, at present, no fewer than 70,000 are either unemployed or temporarily stopped. That is a very high percentage, and this House is entitled to examine carefully what it is possible to do to
help a great industry in such circumstances. Iron and steel enter largely into the daily life of every civilised race.
10.0 p.m.
We trust our lives to iron and steel, almost every minute of the day. Except for those few Members who walk to the House, no Member would be here to-night if he did not trust his life to iron and steel in some form. We are standing on iron and steel at this moment. If it gave way, and we were precipitated into the heating chamber below, it would only be a proof that the steel was not as true as it ought to be. I only want to demonstrate the importance of iron and steel. Yet in every country except this, the iron and steel industry is flourishing. When iron and steel production is increasing in all the other great producing countries of the world, this is the only one where the industry is not flourishing, and that note ought to be sounded in the House to-night. The world production of iron and steel has gone up 40 per cent. since pre-War days. In Great Britain it has not gone up at all. That is a significant fact. In Great Britain we increased our capacity by almost 50 per cent. during the War. We had to do so. Now we have this great key industry, this vital industry, working at something like 60 per cent. of capacity at the present time. It is fair to ask then what is wrong with the industry. Is it inefficient? Have the workers lost their skill? Have the employers lost their business ability? The workers had skill, and the employers had business ability at one time, that, I think, we may assume, in view of the reputation of our nation in regard to this and other basic industries. Have our scientists been asleep? Is our plant obsolete? Are the working relations between master and man bad? I would like to answer each one of these questions, and I hope that my replies to them will go outside this House and to those countries where it is said that we have an inefficient iron and steel trade. I answer that charge by saying that it is not inefficient, and the best proof of its efficiency is that the average price of steel is only 14 per cent. above pre-War prices to-day, while, as shown by the Board of Trade index figures, wholesale prices generally are up 33 per cent. That is one of the best answers to the charge of inefficiency against either the workers or the employers.
To give a practical instance. A steel ship plate made to-day is £8 17s. In 1914 it was £7 17s. 9d. An angle is £8 7s. 6d. to-day; it was £7 9s. in 1914. It is to be recognised that almost everything which goes to the making of this commodity has gone up enormously in price. I would particularly draw attention to the fact that we are bearing a very much increased weight of insurances; that social services are up 200 per cent. since the days of which I am speaking, and that, while de-rating has to some extent put matters right in connection with local rates, yet local rates, railway rates. Imperial taxation and debt charges are all burdens which this industry has to bear. Yet with it all, in 1929 we were able to produce 9,750,000 tons of steel—almost a record for this country—and to export over 4,000,000 tons of steel. We are doing our best in most difficult circumstances when we are able to show that production and that amount of exports, to foreign countries and Empire markets.
I shall say something further about the skill of the workmen. I have travelled in America, and have visited the big steel works there, and I have found as the heads of departments, and as foremen in the various shops, men who have gone over there from this side. I say deliberately as an employer that I regard with great apprehension what is taking place at the present time in this country. At present, a "killed class of workmen in this country stand in danger of losing their jobs. We have been talking to-night about filling up Queen Street tunnel, making roads and matters of that kind, and yet skilled workmen in this country are in danger of losing their job. I say deliberately that we cannot do without them. I claim that, so far as that trade is concerned, neither have the employers lost their business ability, nor have the scientists been asleep, nor has the man lost his skill.
One word about relationships between master and man. I think we can claim, and that hon. Members opposite who know the trade will agree, that in that respect this trade has shown a good example to other trades. Relationships have throughout a long period been satisfactory and the machinery for conciliation and arbitration has been a model as compared with some industries; and over a long period, I might say almost
half a century, there has never been really a national crisis in the iron and steel industry, which is due, I believe, largely to the good relationships that have existed generally between master and man. That has not been the cause of our falling back in the iron and steel trade.
Then what is wrong? In the first place, the industry is overburdened with taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking at Leeds, I think, the other day, said that a reduction in Imperial taxation would only come consequent on a revival in trade, but I feel that the converse must be true, and that a revival in trade can only come after a reduction in the load of taxation, because I know as far as the iron and steel industry is concerned, that the effect of heavy Imperial taxation is to drain it of those reserves which it requires for development. Then there are transport costs. We have been speaking about the railway companies to-night. They have their difficulties, I know—their costs have been put up too—but the fact remains that we have a 65 per cent. increase in railway charges now, as compared with before the War, and we only have a 14 or 15 per cent. increase in the selling price of steel. I could send a ton of steel to Canada by water from the Clyde cheaper than I could bring it up from Sheffield at the present time. These are significant facts, and anything which we could do to bring down the heavy rates of transport charges would help us greatly in the iron and steel trade.
What else? The home market is entirely open to foreign competition, thereby producing an instability which has affected the whole trade. But the two greatest reasons of all are these: In the first place, that we can only work to about 60 per cent. of our present capacity, and therefore we cannot get our costs down sufficiently; and the second is that we have not got the capital available for development, that is, modernising and keeping our plants up-to-date, and plant that ought to be rendered obsolete and replaced is still kept in operation simply because we have not got the reserves and the capital to put it into order.
These are our difficulties. What can be done to help them? What are the
remedies for the ills from which this industry is suffering? I take them in order, and I take first one that I do not believe in at all, and yet it is one that has been trumpeted throughout the land by hon. Members opposite. I mean nationalisation. It is as dead as Queen Anne. There is not a Member on the other side who seriously believes that if he took over the iron and steel trade now, and ran it as a Government Department, freely open to the competition of the world, at present wage levels, he could make a success of it. Therefore, do not let us waste any more time over that. As far as hon. Members opposite are concerned, their opinions on nationalisation seem to be undergoing a considerable change.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Major COLVILLE: Yes, and I will give proof of it. The proof is this. Up and down the land we heard that the coal royalties would be nationalised. Does that come into the Coal Bill? No, it was left to hon. Members below the Gangway on this side to bring in an Amendment about that. That is a proof that they are changing their mind on the subject. They may say they are a minority Government, and therefore cannot force it through the House, but if that is the reason, we find 290 Members, sitting there, knowing in their hearts that they have an absolute policy to cure all the troubles that industry is heir to, and they have not the courage to try and do a deal and put it through. It is as dead as Queen Anne, and the ghost of it may walk for some years yet to haunt them.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: One reason why nationalisation is not mentioned is that both the parties opposite have said that the moment we touch nationalisation, that will be the end of our existence as a Government.

Major COLVILLE: The proof of what I say is that it fell to the party below the Gangway here to put the nationalisation of mineral royalties into the Coal Bill. Now for rationalisation. That is taking place in the industry at the present time, and the immediate results of it, as hon. Members opposite know, are the displacement of men—1,000 men at Penistone, 600 men at Parkhead, and I could name other places. Great mergers have
taken place on Tees-side, and all over the country that is happening, and it is bound to happen. Yet, if you cannot increase your market, rationalisation is more rationing; than rationalising, simply parceling out existing work. But rationalisation is coming and is bound to come. You cannot stand in the way of it any more than you can go back to the days of the spinning jenny, but let us recognise that rationalisation alone is not an "Open Sesame" to work for all. Amalgamations alone are not an "Open Sesame" to work for all. Yet rationalisation will come, and rationalisation, wisely carried out, meaning a concentration in certain plants of certain valuable lines of business, will result in increased trade and in more men being taken on later on. Hon. Members know that I could speak with knowledge on this matter if I had more time.
I mentioned just now de-rating, which is a great step in the right direction. I have seen idle plants taxed out of existence by local rates and done away with, rather than keep on paying rates with the plant standing still, and yet that plant might have been retained and put into operation again. I have seen new industries frightened away. I have seen employers come up to places that I could name in Scotland, looking for a site for works, and being frightened off by the enormous burden of the local rates and taxes. I have seen orders lost in the iron and steel trade for less than the accumulated cost of local rates on a ton of steel. And who is it that suffers most? Yet hon. Members opposite and below the Gangway withstood the De-rating Act.
I know the value of de-rating, and that there is plant being put into works to-day directly as the result of the relief from taxation that de-rating has given. I know of places where long-overdue renewals are taking place, and it is on account of the money made available by the lightening of the burden of local taxation by derating. I claim that de-rating is a big step in the right direction, because it is the realisation at last—and Governments have been slow to realise it—that industry in this country cannot continue to stagger along under these huge taxation burdens and yet compete with the world. I do not merely think that it has been of value; I know that it has been of
value. Regarding export trade, a British Steel Export Association has been formed to deal with this question. It includes practically all the manufacturers of plates and sections. This association can speak with one voice for the export trade of Great Britain in that respect, and it is proved of value, and will prove of greater value.
We are making a real bid to increase our export trade. As an indication of it, the Canadian shipments went up by three times in 1929, and though the arrangements were made before the Lord Privy Seal's visit to that country. I do not grudge him any assistance he may have been; he is right to look to the Empire customer for our markets, but the credit is due in other directions in this particular case. The Canadian shipments have increased, and we are making a strong effort to increase our export trade by this means. I realise the enormous importance of our Empire markets for British goods. We cannot over-stress that point. If I may be permitted a personal reference, over three-quarters of the steel which the firm, with which I am connected, sold for export last year went to Empire countries, and in every case a preference was given by those countries. Yet this Government are proposing to abolish preferences. If they had had practical experience of the difficulties of selling steel "broad, and how much we value the preference from these Empire countries, they would be slower to make such disastrous arrangements.
In this country, we are also trying to develop the use of steel. The British Steelwork Association is at work. We speak of rationalisation, and here is a matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the Government. There is need for rationalisation and standardisation in building in order to make room for more use of steel. In America there is a tremendous market for steel in composite building. In this country there would also be a considerable market, but our building laws are antiquated. I hope, therefore, that the Government will take notice of the need of the rationalisation of the building laws in order to keep in line with modern development, and to provide employment for many of our steel workers. The British Steelwork Association have been in communication with the Government on the question, and I hope
that the Government will give it early attention. What else can we do? Other important consumers of steel are the motor car manufacturers in this country. If the Government abolish the McKenna Duties, and let in a flood of foreign cars, each one of these cars will mean about 30 cwts. of steel, and over four tons of coal. Let the Government think twice before they abolish the McKenna Duties. The works in this country, which have been employed on the special steel required for motor cars, have had good times during the last few years, as compared with the steel trade generally, but now they are in doubt and uncertainty as to what is going to happen. I have no doubt what will happen if the Government take off the McKenna Duties. I warn them to have a care before they do it.
What else can we do for the trade? There is capital re-organisation. Hon. Members below the Gangway talk about letting water run out of capital as well as out of the pits in the coal trade, and they will say that we should do the same thing in the steel trade. The difficulty in the steel trade is to get new capital, because we have not a secure home market. Fresh free capital is far better than Government loans. If you get a bank loan or trade facility money, you have to pay back the interest and the capital in a certain time, and that is a burden to which any steel maker under present conditions will hesitate to commit himself. Let us try rather and get capital into the industry by the ordinary free flow of capital, and I know a way in which we can do it, namely, Safeguarding. But we have been skirmishing so far. The imports into this country in 1929 were 2,790,000 tons, the exports were over 4,000,000 tons.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Can you give us the exports compared with pre-War?

Major COLVILLE: The exports last year were over 4,000,000 tons, and in 1913 were 5,000,000 tons, a drop of 1,000,000 tons from pre-War. The imports this year amounted almost to 3,000,000 tons. I believe almost all of it could have been made here. If only 2,000,000 tons had been made here that would have used 7,000,000 tons of coal, providing work for 25,000 miners for a
year. That is a consideration which ought to be taken into account. Further, one ton of steel made in this country represents seven tons of traffic. There would have been 14,000,000 tons of traffic if that steel had been made in this country. I have calculated that if it had been made in this country no less than 80,000 men would have been given employment. I earnestly believe that the biggest attack that can be made on the unemployment problem is by safeguarding the iron and steel industry for a definite period. I have spoken about Canada and the Lord Privy Seal's visit. I do not minimise the importance of that great market, but Canada took under 100,000 tons from us last year. We might treble that, making it 300,000 tons, and that would be a valuable contribution; but 3,000,000 tons is being imported into our own country under our eyes. Our home market is being assailed by 3,000,000 tons of foreign material. What are we competing against? Let us take the wage levels in France, Belgium and Luxembourg. The average wages of steel workers in Belgium are 27s. per week.

Miss WILKINSON: Under Protection!

Major COLVILLE: —and the average wages of steel workers in this country are £3 1s. If we want to set a standard of living in this country, if we want our workers to be the best looted after in the world, it seems to me madness to undermine the position here by admitting goods made under conditions which we should not tolerate. The Civil Research Committee is sitting at the present time examining the whole question of the iron and steel trade, and we hope a report may be out in a month or soon afterwards. It is conducting a most exhaustive examination. No doubt the hon. Member who replies for the Government will say they are taking every necessary step because they are carrying out this examination into the iron and steel trade. If I believed that the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had an open mind on this subject, so that if the Committee, after their examination, found that the industry was entitled to a certain measure of safeguarding, they would receive that recommendation with a fair mind, I would
not move this Motion. But the Chancellor has said repeatedly that the Government's policy in regard to safeguarding is well known, and therefore I feel bound to move this Motion. Support for this claim is coming not alone from representatives of the employers. I want to read a resolution passed by the No. 3 Divisional Committee of the Iron and Steel Trade Federation at Sheffield in April, 1928:
That this Divisional Committee views with alarm the increasing unemployment and under-employment in the steel trade. We are convinced that a large measure of this is due to the importation into this country of steel made under low wages and non-trade union conditions in Continental countries.
We maintain that, given equal wages and conditions of employment, the British worker can produce as good and as cheaply as his foreign competitor, and that it is altogether false economy to pay unemployment benefits and Poor Law relief under what amounts to a subsidy of our competitors' low standard of living.
The realisation is in the mind not only of the employers but also of the work people. Here we set up a certain standard of wages and at the same time we are allowing the free importation of those articles which are made under a much lower standard of wages, in fact it is a standard which we should not tolerate at all in this country. That is a question of prime importance, and one with which the Government must deal. Questions have been asked about the consumers of this raw material. Who are they? They include shipbuilders and construction workers, and they are dependent on the raw material of the steel trade as one of their prime necessities. With regard to the shipbuilding industry, I have no fear whatever about the effect of safeguarding the iron and steel trade. It is a well-known fact that many of the great shipbuilding firms of this country never use any foreign material at all because, as far as that is concerned, they know that British steel is the best.
What about the sheet trade? This trade depends to some extent on foreign material, but it is being supplied by the foreigner who is putting down his own finishing plant, and the time will come when there will be great difficulty in obtaining that material. Consequently they are not on sure ground, and the
manufacturers in this country would be on much surer ground if we produced in this country all the necessary semifinished material for sheet-rolling. With regard to constructional work a large part of it is made of foreign steel by those who could afford to pay for British material. I do not believe that that market would be adversely affected by Safeguarding.
In negotiating agreements with Continental countries to secure export markets, we are placed at a very serious disadvantage in having nothing to bargain with, and the result is that it has always been difficult for us to succeed in developing our export trade for that very reason. The position is going to be made a great deal more difficult by the suggested tariff truce. I look upon that proposal with much concern, because I feel sure that instead of being any advantage to this country it is going to make Great Britain fight with her hands behind her. It suggests the Millenium when the lion is supposed to lie down with the lamb, but by a curious reversal of the usual process, it is the British lion that loses its fleece, and not the lamb. On this question of tariffs, we are entitled to ask ourselves if we are the only sane country in a mad world, or whether it is, perhaps, the other way round, and that we are the only mad country in a sane world, attempting to keep up a certain standard of living and at the same time admit these goods. I appeal to the party opposite, who claim to represent British labour, to go right ahead and give this great industry fair play, to receive the Report of the Committee with an open mind, and, if it needs a measure of safeguarding, to accord it safeguarding for a definite period. I may be asked, "Why did not your party do it?" I say that, if they had they would be on the other side of the House to-day. They had a pledge, and it is the custom for this party to regard pledges as sacred and to fulfil them, in sharp distinction to other pledges that we have come across recently. For that reason, this party did not carry out safeguarding for the heavy industries when they were in office, but their hands were free at the last election, and to-day we had a pronouncement from our Leader on this matter. We can carry it out next time if the party opposite do not. I want to appeal to the party
opposite. The real thing that matters is that these men are unable to earn a livelihood, and this great industry is suffering. When a man is drowning, it is not who goes to his rescue that matters; what matters is that he should be rescued. That the game is more than the players of the game, and the ship is more than the crew. Let them go right ahead and afford safeguarding now, should the Report of this Committee point in that direction. By that means they will restore this industry, and earn the gratitude of the country. In that spirit I appeal to all sections of the House for fair play for a great industry.

Miss WILKINSON: I hope the hon. and gallant Member will forgive me for interrupting him, but may I ask him whether he really meant that the view of the Tory party is that the ship is more important than the crew? We have a different view.

Major COLVILLE: I do not think that that intervention calls for a reply. I appeal to the House to regard this question, not in any spirit of frivolity—

Miss WILKINSON: I was not being frivolous.

Major COLVILLE: —but seriously, and to remember that what is said in this House carries weight outside. I am appealing on behalf of an industry which represents the livelihood of many people, and which is a key industry for this country, because, if it fails, we can no longer continue to be a first-class Power in the world. In that spirit I appeal to the House to give this industry fair play.

Sir H. CROFT: I beg to second the Motion.
I am sure the House will agree that my hon. and gallant Friend had no reason to apologise at the commencement of his speech, for it was a most interesting speech, and I am sure everyone, to whatever party he may belong, will agree that we hope that my hon. and gallant Friend may be frequently heard again in our Debates. If the times had been normal, I might to-day have felt occasion for rejoicing, because I have seen indications from every part of the country that trade unionists are endeavouring to see that safeguarding is maintained, and in
many eases extended to other industries; and I have also seen, within the last day or two, that the very foundations of the Liberal faith, as far as Free Trade is concerned, are cracking, while only this very day I have heard my Leader espouse the policy of Safeguarding along the lines to which, I think I may say, I have given the best of my energies for the last 25 years.
It is not easy, however, for any man to rejoice at anything which might look like a tactical or political victory when so many of his countrymen are suffering at the present time in these great heavy industries of this country, our great staple industries. We are engaged in a race against time, a race against disaster, and I feel that all of us, no matter what our previous opinions on economics may have been, ought to get together and see if we cannot do something to prevent our country from going further down the slope in this great race with our foreign competitors. I think it will be agreed in every quarter of the House that employment is really the supreme issue, and today this question of employment is the test of statesmanship. You cannot aid employment merely by widening the basis of pensions or by extending relief or benefits in this direction or another, or even by making roads, however necessary they may be, although I admit that that is probably better than paying doles. We have heard from a previous speaker this evening that this policy of creating work only shows the bankruptcy that is one of the features of our modern civilisation.
These policies have been tried, but I submit that no dog can live on repeated meals from its own tail, and we have now to realise that we are up against a huge difficulty. I am convinced that the Lord Privy Seal has studied every possibility, every expedient under our present economic system, for helping this country out of its troubles. I have no doubt of his sincerity, and I think the House owes him a debt of gratitude for the courageous way in which he faced facts and told us the other day not that he was going to give us homes for heroes but that we had got to tighten our belts. As a nation it is our duty to see what we can possibly do to prevent a worse position still, realising as we do that 97,000 more workers are out of employment to-day
than at this time last year, and realising, as I believe is the fact, that there were more persona out of work on 1st February than has been the case for the last seven years.
I believe the only path to prosperity is through the creation of new industries and the expansion of our existing industries, selling more overseas and, what is still far more important, selling more in our own great home market. I submit also that all the old staple industries of the country are in a parlous condition and that the only prosperous industries at present are those that are protected. What witness shall I call? It is no good calling trade union leaders any longer, because most of them are with us on this subject, as far as I can see, in all the industries where the matter has been put to the test. It is no good my calling representatives of the Liberal party, because they are already tainted. They have come a very long way in our direction in the last 10 days.

Mr. PYBUS: So it is a definite taint, is it?

Sir H. CROFT: I do not mind by what name the hon. Member calls it, I am only glad that he does not deny the fact. The one man in the House who has learnt nothing and who stands rigid with this head in the sand where he buried it 40 years ago—I refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—is the only impeccable witness to whom I can now turn. I think he is a witness whose views are worth recording. On 3rd February, 1929, he wrote an article in the "Sunday Sun" under the headlines, "This ghastly mess of Unemployment." He said:
The present industrial situation in England affords a good illustration of this aspect of the employment problem. The great bulk of unemployment in England is confined to about four of the old heavy industries, coal, iron and steel, textiles and shipbuilding. The newer industries, like chemicals, electrical appliances, wireless, motors, gramophones and artificial silk are prosperous and hundreds of thousands of persons are employed in these trades, which were small or practically non-existent 25 years ago.
Every one of these trades to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is a protected industry with the exception of electrical appliances. [An HON. MEMBER: "And chemicals."] The hon. Member has only to go into the matter very briefly and he will discover that
an enormous section of the chemical trade is actually protected. Dyes and fine chemicals are not things that can be ignored. The only industry referred to which was prosperous and which was not protected, was that of electrical appliances, and everyone who has studied the question will agree that that is a sheltered industry, because under the late Government's scheme the whole of those great orders were given to British firms.
I want to point out this fact. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after telling us that these industries were also prosperous, said, I would suggest, "This will not do or they will be quoted against me, and the bubble on which I climbed to fame will be burst. We must take this protection from these industries, every one of them, and open the flood gates of foreign competition once more." What is the result? We have a Minister specially appointed to find employment for the people of this country, and for every 5,000 persons the Lord Privy Seal has put into a job the Chancellor of the Exchequer has driven that number out of the jobs on which they are working at the present time. Already, as a result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's war on industry and upon the trade unions of the country, the most disastrous effects are being felt. Only last week Messrs. Courtaulds mentioned that they would have to dispense at once with 4,000 workers. Three foreign artificial silk companies which had decided to come into this country have now cancelled that decision, and I am sorry to say that the whole of that great industry is in a serious condition.
You have only to look at the Stock Exchange quotations to see a depreciation of millions in value since the Chancellor of the Exchequer made these threats against the success of that industry. Here is a letter from the chairman of a successful industry in the North of England which I must read. I hope that I may not be pressed to give his name, though I shall be very glad to give it to the Minister if he so desires. The chairman of this company wrote the letter two days ago as follows:
Just as we are getting established we have to face the possibility of the silk duties being removed. The present effect of this uncertainty is that the buyers will not add to their stocks, and instead of a
brisk trade as is usual at this time of the year, demand has died down almost to nothing, as the market reports from the buying centres of Manchester, Leicester, Nottingham, etc., indicate. But if the rumours are true and the tax is actually taken off, the effect will be worse still, and I have no hesitation in saying that on the same date that the tax is taken off we will be compelled to shut down our factory.
That is only one of a score of cases. The masters of the great cotton industry, only yesterday in Manchester, met together and carried a resolution urging His Majesty's Government to put an end to this uncertainty and not to remove these duties. The steel trade is crying aloud for the help of the party opposite and the help of this House. What are you doing? You say, "We are going to make your coal dearer, and we are going to make the coal of your foreign competitors cheaper." The textile industry in Lancashire and Yorkshire says, "Help us!" and what do you do? You say, "Well, there is the artificial silk industry which has kept you afloat during the last three years." In scores of mills in this country it would not have been possible to carry on but for the fact of the artificial silk duty. What happens? The Government come along and say, "We are going to take the security away from the artificial silk industry, and that is our answer to Yorkshire and Lancashire."

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I ask what effect your policy will have on the coal trade? What will the miners get out of it?

Sir H. CROFT: I am glad the hon. Member has asked this question, because it shows that he has not studied the question up to date. My answer is a brief one, and it is that I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that if you import 3,000,000 tons of steel into this country it means that you are depriving your workers of 9,000,000 tons of coal. It is not an exaggeration to say three tons for every ton of steel.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: We are exporting far more than three million tons of coal.

Sir H. CROFT: The hon. Member may perhaps like to realise this fact, because it is important that he should make himself acquainted with the needs of his industry, that since the War 100,000,000 tons of coal are represented in the amount
of iron and steel which we have imported from foreign countries. If that. 100,000,000 tons of coal had been gotten in this country, I think it will be agreed that there would have been a very different state of things in the coal industry to-day. As the Commission of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir II. Samuel) said, the only hope for increased consumption of domestic coal lies in the recovery of the heavy industries. Our answer is this: let us get together at the earliest possible date and safeguard iron and steel, glass, earthenware, paper and all those industries which give employment to our great coal industry. Then only are we going to turn the tide. Only last week the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George;, the right hon. Member for Darwen and the right hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman), for the first time, were ready to support an Amendment, on a Private Member's Motion, which would have given power to the whole of the British Empire to levy duties on everything entering into our markets, with the exception of food and raw materials.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Nothing of the kind.

Sir H. CROFT: If it was nothing of the kind, then all that I can say is that their Amendment was a piece of gross hypocrisy. The "Nation and Athenaeum," which represents those right hon. Gentlemen, has said that it would be deplorable to remove these duties, because of the unemployment that would be caused. Professor Keynes, who is the boon companion of the right hon. Gentlemen, writing in a newspaper we or three days ago, said that he did not write these articles himself, as he had been accused of doing, but that he agreed with them. He said:
It is no part of orthodox Free Trade theory that duties are injurious to the protected industry, or that established tariffs can be suddenly removed without doing any harm If Mr. Snowden were to take off the existing protectionist duties, I assume that his object in doing this would be to increase the amount of unemployment for the time being, in order to bring further pressure to bear for the reduction of wages, and so enable our other industries to compete more successfully in world markets. But, personally, I feel that this medicine is too severe for our present circumstances.
The cat is out of the bag. The Free Traders want to do away with these
duties in order to cause more unemployment and to get back to the original idea of the Lancashire school of depressing wages in order that they may be able to compete more successfully abroad.

Mr. PYBUS: The hon. Members who proposed and seconded the Resolution have spoken as though they were speaking for the whole of the steel trade. I suggest that if they are claiming to speak for the shipbuilding trade they had better bring their proxies with them. Where are their proxies from the Clyde? What will Clydebank say, what will Fairfield say when you propose to increase the price of their raw material? Where are their proxies from the Tyne?

Major COLVILLE rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: It is the hon. Member's maiden speech effort, and he ought to be allowed to proceed without interruption.

Major COLVILLE: I beg pardon.

Mr. PYBUS: Where are the proxies from the Tyne, where the last figures show that 27 per cent. of the people engaged in the shipbuilding industry were out of work and totally unemployed? Where are the proxies from the Mersey? If you are claiming to impose Safeguarding upon a great industry I think you should be careful to describe exactly whom you represent and by what authority you speak. Will increasing the price of steel plates and castings lift the shipbuilding industry out of its dilemma? I do not think so. It is merely a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is useless to bolster up inefficient industries at the expense of efficient ones. Some of the shipyards I have seen on the Clyde and the Tyne compare favourably, from the point of view of efficiency, with many of the steel works which I have also seen.
We have heard many doleful tales about the depression in the heavy industries. The only one which is described by the hon. Gentleman as not being protected—I think he said it was about the only one—has a somewhat remarkable record, because since 1913 its exports have risen from £7,500,000 to £19,500,000. That is an unprotected industry, and where do its exports go? Over 60 per cent. of its exports last year went to the Dominions and even that
arch-sinner, Australia, took £4,000,000 worth. If we are to charge more for our steel, will that have no effect on this industry which is sufficiently efficient, with the same wages conditions as in foreign countries and with the same handicap and which has doubled its export business? Is it fair to land an increasing price on that industry, and is it reasonable to expect that that kind of export trade would be continued? This beggar-my-neighbour business in industry is a very poor remedy. You say, "We will safeguard your trade too." The heavy electrical trade suffered from imports of exactly £800,000 last year and exported £20,000,000, so I do not think it is in need of assistance. May I call attention to the fact that when a man is a seller of goods he has a very different view about prices from that which he has when he becomes a buyer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who proposed this Motion had a few words to say on the Coal Bill about the outrage of raising the price of coal. He was arguing that an increase of hours would have a very serious effect on the steel industries, and while he has no anxiety whatever about an increase in the price of steel and its effect on the shipbuilding industry, listen to what he says when the question arises of raising the price of coal to the steel industry:
There is another market. That is the home market…I speak with some direct knowledge as being connected with those heavy industries. They have had a hard struggle. The price of steel is very much affected by the price of coal, and there is no doubt that orders would have been lost and men would have been put out of employment if it had not been possible to keep down the cost of coal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1929; col. 1717, Vol. 233.]
What would be the effect of the legislation in extra cost? Twenty per cent. of the output, the hon. Member says, goes to iron and steel, and the chances of getting an increase or being able to sell our steel in present conditions would be smaller still. When Dr. Jekyll the seller becomes Mr. Hyde the buyer then the difference is plain. I beg to oppose the Motion.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): It is impossible in the time available to give anything in the nature of a reply to the arguments which have
been presented by the Mover and Seconder of this Motion, but it is quite evident from their observations that they are enthusiasts for the policy they advocate and also that they are confident that the Government will not do much to assist them in the course they wish to travel. That is not surprising having regard to the fact that the Government have made a declaration of their policy in this respect. But the best answer I can give is the answer which the late Prime Minister gave when he was asked a question on this subject a few years ago. On 21st December, 1925, he was asked a question as to his policy in regard to steel and iron by two of his own supporters, not by Members of the Opposition, and he replied:
The application of the iron and steel trades to the Board of Trade for the appointment of a Committee under the Safeguarding of Industries procedure was referred to the Committee of Civil Research, and its report has been received by the Cabinet. The Civil Research Committee has given the subject prolonged and detailed consideration, and has heard a large number of witnesses, representing employers and employed, engaged in the iron and steel industries and in allied trades. The evidence revealed a serious situation. The pressure of foreign competition, aided by long hours, low wages and depreciated currencies, is being severely felt by our manufacturers, and had His Majesty's Government been able to deal with the iron and steel industries in isolation we might have regarded the case for the inquiry as complete. It became clear, however, in the course of our investigations, that the safeguarding of a basic industry of this magnitude would have repercussions of a far wider character which might be held to be in conflict with our declaration in regard to a general tariff."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 21st December, 1925; col. 1945, Vol. 189.]
We have been told by the mover of the Motion that his party, when they become the government of the country again, will certainly introduce the policy of safeguarding iron and steel. In the light of the statement I have read that means that they are now committed to
the full policy of tariffs and protection for all industries in this country. No other interpretation can be put upon it. The reason why Safeguarding was not applied to iron and steel in 1925 was because it would have cut across the general declaration in regard to tariffs in general, and, therefore, if it is now to be imposed when an opportunity presents itself it means that the declaration of the Conservative party in regard to tariffs in general has been cancelled and withdrawn, and that they are now once again a full-blooded Protectionist party. If this Debate has made that particular point clear it is worth the time that has been spent upon it. At the time that declaration was made the state of the iron and steel industry was much worse than it is to-day. The average monthly production of pig iron in 1925 was 521,000 tons. Last year it was 631,000 tons. The average production of steel ingots in 1925 was 615,000 tons. In 1929 it was 804,000 tons. Therefore if the Conservative party could not put their policy of safeguarding into operation in 1925, when conditions were much worse than they are to-day, it is not reasonable to expect that this Government can adopt the policy when conditions are much better than they were in 1925. It is impossible for me to go further into the matter. If there is this improvement surely that is an argument against the policy advocated by hon. Members opposite.

Sir NEWTON MOORE rose—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Parkinson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven o'clock.